‘Breaking Bad’ and the Rise of the Sociopath
by Michael S. Rulle Jr.When, and why, did American television and cinema viewers first fall in love with the Sociopath protagonist? Perhaps the audience was always there, nascent and ready to be born. My current favorite Sociopath television show is AMC’s Breaking Bad, the story of an ordinary, albeit resentful and self-loathing, married man who breaks out of his bourgeois cocoon to become a Methamphetamine dealer. His bourgeois name is the aptly constructed “Walter White,” representing the plain vanilla nature of his high school Chemistry teacher life in small town New Mexico. His alter ego name is “Heisenberg” (after Nobel winning German physicist Werner Heisenberg), chosen by White, to represent his genius in making the purest and best “Meth” ever seen in the Southwest and Mexico.

I think Coppola’s Godfather series created the modern heroic Sociopath. We rooted for Brando’s and Pacino’s characters, although Michael Corleone became unlikable by the end of Godfather II. Coppola was the first to romanticize the familiar character of the gangster in movies. But Quentin Tarantino perfected the generalized concept of the protagonist Sociopath. His breakout film was, of course, Pulp Fiction, a so-called dark comedy with such a wide variety of watchable sociopaths one could probably make a television series around virtually every major character in the film. In fact, the two strands of modern Sociopathic television and films can be plausibly traced to either Coppola or Tarantino. In the organized crime motif, for example, there is of course The Sopranos and the unfortunately canceled series Brotherhood. But shows like Dexter and Breaking Bad are in the dark comedy mode consistent with Tarantino’s sensibility.
Breaking Bad is in the midst of its third season. It is really hitting its stride. When the show was first promoted prior to its first season, I had no interest at all in seeing it. The premise seemed ridiculous and unappealing. Walter White is the epitome of an underachiever. He has his PHD in chemistry but is somehow stuck teaching high school students who have less than zero interest in the subject matter. He is diagnosed with cancer, which his insurance will not pay for. So he becomes a Meth dealer. This is how the show was promoted. Not only did I not want to watch it, I aggressively had an affirmative dislike for such an amoral and stupid theme. Plus who wants to watch a show where the main guy has cancer? Real life is bad enough; does one really want to watch a television show about it?
Sometime toward the end of the first season I was floundering around the cable channels in insomniac mode when I happened upon Breaking Bad. I believe it had followed an episode of Mad Men, which I have written about. So I watched it and became intrigued. I watched another episode and became hooked. The show has just the right mix of “comic” violence, fantasy, suspension of disbelief, and realism so required for Sociopathic entertainment.
For example, White’s brother-in-law, “Hank,” is a DEA agent obsessed with capturing Heisenberg, but has no hint that White is Heisenberg. In one scene, Hank is in Mexico tracking down a lead on the Meth distribution network. They were working with a drug dealer/informant who called himself “Tortuga,” or Tortoise. He liked to brag to others he was patient and not reckless, which is why he lasted so long, hence the nickname “Tortuga.”
They are tracking down the drug gang in the desert. In the distance they see movement in the tumbleweed. The group of American and Mexican agents carefully approaches the moving object, expecting an ambush. Slowly the moving object comes into view. It is a giant Tortoise. As it approaches they do many double takes as they try to take in what they see. Strapped to the top of the Tortoise is the actual head of Tortuga. After the initial shock, the agents go into macho mode making turtle jokes about Tortuga as the Tortoise strolls by. One of the agent stops the giant turtle to lift the head of Tortuga of its back. It’s a booby-trap. A bomb goes off, killing one agent and injuring several more. Hank survives but becomes psychologically scarred.
Breaking Bad has 2 million viewers. Stuck on AMC (I have 150 HD channels but AMC is not one of them) this is a pretty big audience. Going back to my opening question, why are these shows appealing? For me, the theme was repulsive. Then I watched it. I root for Heisenberg/White, even though he has been directly and indirectly responsible for many deaths. In real life I would want him dead yesterday. But in my sometimes fantasy life, I somehow identify with him. What’s that all about? Maybe “between the dust and love that hangs on everybody, there is a dead man trying to get out.” Or a Sociopath.






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
146 Comments
Ugh. Cheer yourself up by watching "Falling Down."
When Walt first started out, his intentions were….if not noble or pure, then at least higher than where he's at now. He was dying, and on his salary he wasn't going to have anything to leave for his pregnant wife and handicapped son. What's a chemistry prof to do? He makes pure meth, and gets someone already in the trade to handle the ugly business of dealing it.
OK, drugs are baaaaaaaad. But I wasn't repelled by the idea because, as a family man, I can imagine how the pressure to provide for your family in desperate circumstances might push a man to do things a normal, well-adjusted human would find unthinkable.
Of course, his actions have subsequently lost him everything he started out trying to defend, and the circumstances that spurred him into that desperate action have changed altogether, and now he's stuck trying to extricate himself from the consequences of his choice. I think there's a valuable lesson in that.
Success in this world is defined by achievement.
Do you make, or have, large sums of money?
Do you hold a prestigious title or position in business or academia?
Are you famous?
Any one, or combination, of those three are the gauge by which you are determined to be a winner or a loser in this world.
The character of Walter White was a dedicated if not frustrated teacher, a good father and husband, and essentially a loser in the eyes of the world. In his eyes he did everything right and still got screwed over by life.
I think this is the appeal to so many viewers. The average schmo who didn't go to an Ivy League school and didn't make millions but is quietly and reliably providing for and raising a family is seen essentially as a loser by the world.
Brian Cranston has to be one of the most talented actors on TV. The guy is utterly convincing and no matter what he's doing, you just have to root for him. I had trouble watching this at first because I couldn't get past the fact that this is Hal from Malcolm in the Middle. Cranston stole every scene he was in on that show, and for him to go from bumbling nutbag dad to murdering drug dealer proves his talent to me.
As for the philosophical question regarding why we root for sociopaths, I think all of us have some inner desire to be the bad guy. Maybe not on the level of Walter White (or Jeffrey Dahmer), but a guy that can do things without restraint or remorse.
How does the saying go? "There comes a time in every decent man's life when he must roll up his sleeves, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats"
F*ckin A…..
Just so.
Thus I think the comparison to the Corleones or various Pulp Fiction characters is a bit unequal; Walt knew what he was doing was wrong. Such antisocial behavior wasn't his natural state of existence, he only adopted it when he felt he was left with no other alternative.
Maybe it's defining deviancy down. Maybe it's because there's so little else out there worth watching. Or maybe it's because it's just so damn entertaining! I went through the same things you describe, then finally decided to give it a try. I was hooked. And it had nothing to do with Heisenberg's blue ice. Just finished season 2 on DVD. Can't wait for season 3. Went through the exact same thing with Dexter, hooked on that too now. What they both have in common is great characters. Breaking Bad season one is a little uneven, but hang in there, it's all "downhill" from there.
I have often thought of this moral dilemma (maybe that's too strong a description) of enjoying a television show with an amoral premise. As a fan of The Sopranos and now Breaking Bad I struggle with rooting for a sociopathic protagonist. But I think that is the intelligent message of the show: you stop at some point and realize that ultimately their sociopathic behavior really doesn't pay off. Tony Soprano and most of his inner circle are killed at the end of the show and Walter White is seeing the results of his lifestyle by all the tragedy that surrounds him. He's lost his wife, Hank has been shot and there have been various threats on his life. Jesse Pinkman says it best when he initially turns down Walter's offer of partnership. Jesse tells him that everything he loved has been lost since he met Walter. I believe Walter refects and realizes that the same thing is happening to him. Captivating television, unpredictable, and along with Rescue Me, one of the best shows on television past or present.
The Pulp Fiction is amoral crap.
The Godfather at least tried to portray a character that started out as a naive immigrant that just wanted to survive and provide but was faced with criminals but instead of turning away from crime decided to be bigger, badder and meaner than the other criminals.
I think the appeal of the sociopath is the mystery of how their minds work. I can't imagine what it would be like to do the things they do with no guilt. "Dexter" intrigues me because of the narration and he's always talking about the missing parts of his psyche. In that show we're as much a mystery to him as he is to us. Also, a lot of these shows have the main character doing things we'd never do and sometimes there's a vicarious thrill to be had– especially if something like revenge is involved.
Maybe we're subconsciously reacting to the knowledge that the "bad boys" always get the girls.
I think you were right the first time.
I have tried to watch these shows but I gradually lose interest. There is no redeeming value and the characters never grow or develop well. Even when the characters are unpredictable they are predictably unpredictable.
The Godfather series was a great series but not the feel good movie of the year. The genius behind the story is that you see what crime actually did to the family. Ironic since the godfathers entered into crime to protect or advance family interest. By the end of Godfather 3, Michael dies alone and unmourned except fo the dogs arounnd the table. He has lost everything – family, respect, and honor. The current string of sociopath movies are unrealistic because they do not always show the real consequences of evil deeds.
I would argue that the lead in Falling Down wasn't a sociopath. It's also a tragedy.
There lurks a sociopath inside us all, yearning to be free from the constraints of societal norms. That's why we like the sociopath-fantasy genera.
Something worth reading about real sociopaths:
http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?...
Ah, but Breaking Bad *does* show the negative consequences of evil deeds. In fact, it's grown to be much of the focus of the series. And unlike the Corleones, who were difficult to empathize with because their entire lifestyle was so alien from the start, Walt is just an average schmuck. He wasn't a bad guy, he was a good guy who made a terribly dumb decision.
Part of Cranston's appeal is the ability to make you feel his agonizing over these choices, and the horror of how one simple choice is spiraling downward out of his control.
I don't see how any one who knows anything about meth addiction can stomach watching a show were the main character blackmails a kid, who is in recovery, into dealing meth witch in all reality would lead him back to active using and eventual death. This is evil, as in "in league with the Enemy" evil.
Injecting yourself daily with some PhD's toxic chemical which rots your teeth, guts and turns you brain into psychotic mush makes you feel free and unrestrained?
Um, you missed the sarcasm.
I had never even heard of the show until I was a stand-in for Breaking Bad, since my aunt works and casts down here in New Mexico. Still haven't watched the show, but my cousin is WAY into it, he loves it, and my mom actually started watching it just to see and figure out where in Albuquerque they're filming.
I don't think that Walt is an underachiever. Walt has a history that hasn't been fully explored or revealed. His ex-girlfriend and former best friend have made millions off of Walt's work, which they apparently stole from him. There is something big there that hasn't been and may never be revealed that drives many of Walt's decisions.
Breaking Bad shows us every week how rationalizing bad behavior can lead to a downward spiral which cannot be checked. In Breaking Bad, we see that plans and intentions are trumped by reality. A desire to make money led Walt to break the law, which put his family in physical, rather than financial, danger. Walt quickly found that his new lifestyle would force him to kill to protect his family from his mistakes.
I'd say that's definitely a factor…..
No no… It's the PhD that is free from the societal norms. He's the sociopath, not the users of his product.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Sociopathy has a very specific definition (see Wikipedia) and most entertainments that include sociopaths include them as the villians because they are the people you hope will get killed (Tuco in BB is a good example of this type of character). Characters like Walter White are not so one dimensional. They have made bad choices. At some point the character understands that what they are doing is wrong and the conflict comes into play as their choices and character flaws (pride, revenge, envy, greed, etc.) push them further away from what they know is right, forcing them to make more bad choices. We are drawn to these characters because we can see ourselves in them, if only on a less epic scale and we are always hoping that they will make the better choices because we can see how the bad choices are impacting their lives. But we don't see ourselves in the sociopaths and we aren't drawn to them. Sociopaths are the one dimensional characters that represent evil and only real sociopaths might find them interesting enough to watch multiple seasons of their antics.
BREAKING BAD isn't just a crime show, it is a morality play. It shows that there are consequences for every action and the characters are seeing it. I disagree that Walter White is a sociopath. He is a deluded, egotist who is rationalizing his reasons for doing things after painting himself into a corner. He only pays attention to his own little world and doesn't see the big picture. He is only just starting to learn how close he came to getting killed recently by two assassins who were sent to kill him.
The show is actual more moral than most TV shows, and much better written, because it shows that for every action there are reactions. There are long term, serious consequences for bad deeds. Walter is not motivated to do bad things. He did them for what he thought were good reasons and now he is caught in a trap he can't escape from.
The entertainment comes from seeing what happens next and how he gets out of his jams.
Actually, it is one of the most morally accurate shows on TV. It deals with the consequences of the actions the characters make. I think it's one of the best shows in TV history.
Two points.
First, the fascination with sociopaths in movies goes WAY back. Watch Jimmy Cagney in "The Public Enemy." He's the hero, he gets the sharp suits, he gets Jean Harlow (yowza!), he even does the famous grapefruit scene. Sure, at the end he gets rubbed out because the Decency League would scream if he didn't, but for 99% of the film Cagney's the sociopathic hero. After we watched it on DVD my little boy borrowed a hat and went around with fingers blazing as the toughest gangster in the house.
Second: Pulp Fiction. Unlike Public Enemy, Pulp Fiction DOESN'T make heroes of its gangsters. The Big Boss, Marcellus Wallace, gets raped and humiliated by racist perverts. Vincent Vega gets shot on the toilet with his own gun. Only Jules, who abandons his gangster life and actually prevents a bloodbath in the coffeeshop, is spared. Butch the boxer defrauds the gangsters by refusing to throw a rigged fight, and even goes back to save the life of the crook who was waiting at his house to kill him — and Butch rides off with a pretty girl on the back of his chopper and a small fortune in gambling winnings.
I love Breaking Bad. My wife discovered it. We watch and DVR it every week. I do, however, share some of the antipathy toward watching a show whose 'hero' is providing such a destructive drug to society. And the episode where Jesse is shown taking heroin is particularly disturbing in it's euphoric portrayal of that. Once again though, the horrible aftermath brings drug's destructive powers into focus. The characters in the show are vey realistic and well-developed and I love that the disabled son is played (quite well) by an actual disabled boy.
My prior favorite in this genre was "The Shield". Anyone unfamiliar with that show, should immediately rent the first episodes and prepare to get hooked. The bad/good guys commit the ultimate crime halfway thru the first episode, yet I and probably most viewers, spend several years rooting for them to get away with it.
Isn’t rooting for, or liking the ‘less’ bad guy, similar to voting for the lesser of two evils? Or is it the Robin Hood syndrome? Are stories like that more common or becoming more common? And then the bad guy is good until he comes for you. Just a thought.
Having as a child lived a few years with a parent who thought dealing drugs was an acceptable way of supplementing household income I can say there is nothing redeeming about such a decision. That the entertainment industry would try to "humanize" the people who are engaged in this most disgusting and destructive type of activity is no surprise, but to read all the approving comments on BH is most disconcerting. There ARE no extenuating circumstances that can ever justify a parent subjecting their family to such abuse. And why do I get the feeling that if there was a similar show where the mother turned to prostitution or making pornography to support her family the reviews would not be so complimentary.
I think "Breaking Bad" is the best television show currently on the air, but I wouldn't necessarily describe the admittedly flawed Walter White as a sociopath. That term would better describe Tuco and the cousins.
People that are uneasy because they believe this show glamorizes an immoral lifestyle, don't be. It does the very opposite.
*Possible Spoilers*
Walter White starts off, intentionally, being relatable and sympathetic. The audience is forced to ask they question "yeah we know it is bad, but what would YOU do, given the situation." The writers could have left it at that: with an amoral hero doing when he needed to do for his family.
But they didn't. Every action Walter has done has had far reaching, toxic, consequences for, not only Walter himself, but everyone he has associated with since he began his new vocation. He has killed 3 people, indirectly cause the deaths or suffering of countless more, and alienated the family he began down this path for (or so he convinces himself) all for a bag of money he just about set on fire.
Breaking Bad isn't about a sociopath being evil, it is about a regular guy who rationalize how evil he has become without realizing what a shadow of a human being it is making him.
Give me a break. Tim Watley as some kingpin. It says something about us–not in a positive way–that this show can be some kind of hit. High school chem teacher goes rogue and makes meth. Is this the best we can do?
I hope someday they revisit the Grey Matters storyline. Did Elliot and Gretchen steal Walt's work or did he walk away from the company and her as Gretchen insists? Did he have a fear of failure? We still don't know the real story there. How sad would it be if Walt brings utter ruin to his family because of his refusal to accept the Grey Matters job in season 1? Sure, he would have had to swallow his pride, but just think of all the tragedy it would have prevented.
Well, unlike with meth, I say, don't knock it till you try it.
I think it says more about society when "entertainment" like American Idol and Dancing With the Stars are the most popular and WWE is constantly the most popular cable show. Shows like Breaking Bad convince me television has not become the Roman Colosseum.
You some very good points. But the writers are always trying to give White a moral escape route, which makes him different from Tuco—supposedly. For example, when he lets Jesse's girlfriend die (she was threatening him with exposure, and he believes she is stealing Jesse's money) his motivations are supposed to be mitigating. But this is still plain murder. Tuco's uncle—the bell pusher—was also trying to protect Tuco from White. Sociopath is what Sociopath does. White also gets sucked back in by the Chicken Man because "men provide, that's what men do". It does not matter how they provide.
The rise of the Sociopath in these representations are explicitly designed to make us identify with the characters. Their thought processes are familiar to viewers—but their actions are not.
My belief is that we cheer for the sociopath–Tony Soprano, Heisenberg, or their supernatural counterparts in vampire film and literature–because they do indeed act out in ways that we who abide by the social compact, Judeo-Christian morals, and plain old conscience cannot. Who among us has not felt stifled at not being able to lash out at the world when we feel wronged, or wished we could just take what we wanted with no regard for the consequences of our actions?
In the end, most of us realize that in such an amoral universe where there are no rules, we and those we care about are far more likely to be victims of the sociopath than the benefactors of consequence-free behavior. That is why we live in a society of rules and laws, and punish transgressive behavior.
It is also why, in the end, most of us want to see justice prevail. We want to see the stake go through Dracula's heart; we want to see the gangster fall in a hail of bullets. Such an ending reassures us that goodness and morality will prevail, no matter how appealing we find some aspects of the sociopath.
I thought the girlfriend was dead when Walt got there…am I remembering this wrong?
Sorry. I can't watch this show for the same reason I turned off Dexter. Nor will I watch that HBO show with Edie Falco as a sicko nurse. I also nixed Weeds. I think all these shows glamorize very, very bad behavior and amoral characters. I like Burn Notice, Mentalist, Castle and now Justified. I don't need action shows to be lessons on how to get away with murder.
No Walt killed her.
No only did he watch her die but Walt's shaking of Jesse caused Jane to roll on her back which caused her to Hendrix.
I'm sure Walt convinced himself that he did it for Jesse's sake.
"amoral"? AreaMan66, you missed the point of Pulp Fiction; Two men on the same road, one sees the signs, the other ignores the signs. One lives, one dies.
"I'm trying REAL HARD to be the Shepherd."
The point of BB isn't a "lesson on getting away with murder". The point is the life-destroying consequences of trying to.
As much as I loved "The Sopranos", I felt David Chase manipulated this aspect of the series' appeal. That is, while Chase did an awesome job of creating amoral characters with whom we would identify and cheer for, he did not address people's need to be reassured that in the end, the sociopath must face consequences for their actions.
I am referring to an interview Chase gave where he lashed out at viewers who wanted to see Tony Soprano face-down and "dead in a plate of onion rings". Chase was angry at those people who wanted a clear conclusion to the series; more specifically, those who wanted to see Tony die.
With this statement (which was fodder for the endless "what happened to Tony when the screen went dark?" debate), I thought Chase was being disingenuous. Yes, people cheered for Tony Soprano because they identified with his problems at home and at work, but also because Tony took what he wanted and thus acted as a proxy for his audience's own frustrations. In the end, to affirm people's basic moral beliefs, those same viewers who cheered Tony for seven years needed to see him die.
I'm the first to admit that "Breaking Bad" is not for everybody, but I think it's incredibly well written, imaginatively directed, and the acting is superb. It's an entertaining show that I look forward to every Sunday night and I don't think I'm a bad person because of that fact.
Prohibition was worse than alcohol.
Many of us watch because, even with his murders and long-tail culpabilities, Walter White represents the *moral* side of the issue. He has skills, talent, knowledge, and a dedication to quality.
Bad parents cause drug abuse, not drug providers. Those demonizing the victims do so because they dare not ask themselves meaningful questions. Mr. & Mrs. Pinkman are far more evil than their meth-cook son Jesse!
Cranston does some good work. I have always found him engaging even if I did not like the vehicle for his comedy and acting. I did not make it far enough into the series to see the consequences start to pile up so I will bow to your greater knowledge.
Part of my problem is that I see the negative side of life so much in the real world that I do not want to dwell on it in my spare time.
Getting back to the point of the post, if "Breaking Bad" is allowed to fully develop and evolve to whatever its writers, producers, and directors feel the show's conclusion should be, they will face a viewer backlash if Heisenberg beats cancer, regains his family, and walks off with a suitcase full of drug money.
Ok, I can see that.
I agree, but the problem with most of these shows is the difficulty in keeping a protagonist in play. Once you dislike everyone in the show it becomes tough to watch. Breaking Bad is nearing that point. And Walter's decision making is so bad it's getting almost silly.
Not to mention Walt's the stereotypical average, middle-class, white American male – the worst possible creature one could never wanna sympathize with.
Walt on his Methamphetamine business:
"But – I'm, I'm a manufacturer, I'm not a dealer. Per se. It doesn't mean –"
Love it, love the show!
As far as the drug use itself, well … prohibition has never worked, and it never will.
[...] more: ‘Breaking Bad’ and the Rise of the Sociopath This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
I think it's more likely that Gus will be the last man standing, but "Breaking Bad" does a wonderful job of surprising its audience. Can't wait to see how it all ends.
I like those same shows too (have not heard of Castle–will definitely see it now). I agree on Edie Falco show. But when I read your comment I realize my reaction to it was the same as Breaking Bad before I saw the latter. I have not yet watched a Falco show—but now I probably will!
I have trouble with 30 minute shows, oddly enough, which is why I never got into Weeds—plus it never grabbed me—maybe if I watched on DVD I would like it better (not limited to 30 minutes).
James Hudnall mentioned it, but another huge factor is the writing; Vince Gilligan is an incredible writer. Someone in my writer's group told me to read the script for the 1st episode of "Breaking Bad" — it was better than 95% of the novels I've read.
Gilligan writes so well that it can only reflect on the drama itself. Add Brian Cranston and it deserves its 2 million + viewers.
If you are looking for a good read, the script is floating around the Web. It is really superb.
That's a big steaming load of crap.
And if you make that blanket accusation again, I'll hunt you down and give you the beating that you so richly deserve…
Hank – My feelings, exactly. Good one! Sometimes the good guy has to be bad to be good. I do believe the Walter White character has some remorse but just doesn't let it out of the bag. Walter hasn't directly 'murdered' anyone, yet. Just like ligitimate Drug companies, Walter's product comes with public warnings and users/abusers can choose to ignore them at their own peril. But that scene where Walter does directly murder someone is coming, I feel. I also think that Breaking Bad is probably one of the best series on the box right now and will take it's place along side The Sopranos, 6 Feet Under, Deadwood and Dexter as an all time great.
Vince Gilligan is great. If you dont know who he is, hes one of the X Files alumni. Gilligan wrote "Drive" episode which featured Cranston back in 1998. Great stuff. Then again, most shows with X Files alumni are some of the best on TV today.
I only look at it as entertainment. Sure there is some bad elements to the characters but its fun to watch and be thankful you are not in their shoes
I dont think the parents are as evil as Jesse ….they gave him tons of chances to turn himself around.
I like how the show is making you root for both Walter and for Hank….. Can only wonder how it will collide eventually.
In a show filled with absurd coincidences and premises, this is the part that lost me: his insurance wouldn't pay for his cancer. Yeah, like public school teachers have really substandard health insurance.
check out his work on X Files.
I think both those shows and Breaking Bad are reflections of the society that produced and watches them. It seems our choices in entertainment run either to cheap, meaningless "reality TV" or to completely amoral programs. And as a form of distracting the public from the really important things in the world, I say yes, TV has become something like the Colosseum.
If you didnt know of his shortcomings, most would look at Dexter as a hero as he performs his tasks.
I think he's heading for a nervous breakdown. But one of the things I like is he often thinks up some creative solutions to problems.
My husband is a former user, and is in love with this show. He recognizes the lies that beget more lies than beget still more lies. He's fascinated by the way the lies grow and grow, eventually killing off everything that White was lying to protect and forcing him into situations White never would have imagined himself in, having to do things he never imagined he would have to do. It's compelling drama. We dig it.
It doesn't glamorize it at all. It shows, more realistically than most cop shows ever do, the long term consequences of the actions the characters take. It's fascinating because it shows how deluded people can be, when they make bad decisions and try to rationalize them. I think it's more moral than most shows on TV. Not less. Nurse Jackie is on Showtime, BTW. I will be reviewing that shortly.
I thought the Bruce Willis character was a good guy. True, he double crossed Marcellus, but Marcellus was a gangster, and probably leaned on him to throw the fight. And when he has the chance to leave Marcellus to his fate and run, he stays and does a good deed. (Although I realize in the long run society would probably be better off with Marcellus dead.)
I agree. I love this show. Walter White has gone from being a man who made the worst decision for the best reasons to being a man who is addicted. While he doesn't do the drug he makes, he can't stop making it – and now he doesn't want to. In my opinion, he's worse than the meth-heads he cooks for, because he can easily see the consequences of his actions, and he understands how far-reaching and devastating they are. He also understands that his actions put his family in real danger. Yet, he still cooks. He's gone from being a "noble liar" to being a reprehensible, manipulative man who will do anything for the "high" of being known for cooking the cleanest, purest meth on the market.
The sociopathic hero goes back a lot further than the Godfather or Pulp Fiction. John Wayne in The Searchers, Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name, Lee Marvin in Point Blank are all earlier examples.
In Breaking Bad, you have a classic tragedy. A character is overwhelmed by his personal circumstances and he chooses a path that seems to resolve his dilemna, but of course, it just leads him further and further away from who he was. This show is relentlessly dark, I never get much humor out of it. Like Pacino's character in God Father, what good does it do a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?
I'm thinking the premise of the series is that, given the right circumstances, anyone/everyone is capable of "breaking bad." We see Hank go over the top and beat perpetrators, Hank's wife is a shoplifter, Skyler, Walter's wife is having an affair with her boss, her boss is cheating on his taxes, The Chicken Man is really a drug kingpin, etc. The absurdity creates the dark comedy that makes this story so compelling, i.e. Jesse's girlfriend overdoses, her air traffic controller father goes off the deep end with grief and allows two airliners to collide, showering the White's neighborhood with "fallout" – a comic sort of improbability with a lot of symbolism thrown in for good measure… a complete departure from the formula, shallow, badly written television that seems to dominate the market.
Just because the show has evil or amoral characters does not mean it lacks morals. Walter White is not meant to be respected or be a hero. As stated above, as a result of his actions he is a becoming a destroyed individual.
It seems classically many forms of fiction have had less than good characters at the helm. One of the most intelligent characters Shakespeare ever wrote, Iago, was most likely a sociopath. Macbeth isn't exactly Mike Brady. Even in the comedies motivations are many times motivated by lust or profit.
Or we could look at the Greek tragedies. MOST of the characters are morally bankrupt. The play Medea comes to mind. Jason banishes his wife for a younger woman; Medea burns this woman alive and murders he two young sons out of vengeance.
I'm obviously not saying that Breaking Bad is on the level of some of Western Civilization's best, just that characters like that of "Leave it to Beaver" are atypical.
What bothers me about reality shows is that it is degrading to everyone involved. They are holding a bag of cash over our fellow human beings head and yelling "Entertain us monkey!". Dancing with the Stars is particularly abhorrent because it is requiring us to respect these people who really produce very little. Yet people watch it.
*characters are many times motivated…
Definitely agree. I don't know if Walter is able to let the remorse out. He once said that the only problem he had was the fear, that fear was the enemy. "Now that I've gotten rid of the fear, I sleep just fine".
I do think, however, that he knows his soul is going to be forfeit and that no matter what he does, he's in it for the long haul.
Again, my drumbeat: Advocating this show is your prerogative in a free society, but it's appropriate for a conservative entertainment site in what way??? The list of such absurd recommendations I find on BH is growing by the day: KICK A$$, Modern Family, Parenthood, and now Breaking Bad, to name but a few.
As I've said before, what difference does it make how well acted or well written it is when the content and the thematics are do repellent to conservatism? Why not recommend Aaron Sorkin's or Dick Wolfe's work? Can you find better filmmakers in the history of cinema than Eisenstein and Reifenstahl? But what is the content of all their work? Would their work also be recommended on Big Hollywood?
Some numbskull posted previously that to decry the show's subject matter is stupid because "prohibition never worked and it won't work now." So, from that rubric the Tea Party should just give in to the inexorable trend toward big government and Big Hollywood should just cave to the decay of entertainment and its effect on our society.
I so wanted a conservative alternative to the liberal entertainment sources… My disappointment with Big Hollywood grows by the day.
For the record, Mr. Rulle, AMC is available in nearly 100 million American homes, so the audience of 2 million viewers for "Breaking Bad" isn't small for lack of opportunity. Evidently close to a 98 million homes — with several potential viewers per home — choose not to watch it on purpose.
Interesting. I always thought sociopathic behavior was a permanent mis-wiring, that caused a person to be completely without moral or emotional attachment to others (i.e. Dexter) This guy sounds like a person who just lost it and gave up on society.
Find and watch "Falling Down: Roadwork" version. All the Michael "D-Fens" Douglas action without the depressing retiring detective and his needy wife subplot.
We can cheer because their end users are free to avoid their worlds in the first place. To paraphrase Barzini, they are not communists who force everyone to buy their shit.
My dad was a dedicated worker, a good father and husband–also a loser in the eyes of the world. He contracted esophageal cancer, and Medicare refused to pay for his treatment. (Thank you, Medicare rationers.) He didn't go out and start a meth lab. Instead, he focused on spending every minute he could with his family, and he died with no regrets. That's more than I can say for a lot of people.
I'd have to agree with you on that. The character was obviously not "born evil," but he willingly chose the dark side.
Edgar Allan Poe wrote an essay about that impulse to do bad or cheer on the bad. He called it "The imp of the perverse." Most of the time we can resist the imp, but when life hits us a little too hard, we may just give in, like Walter did.
My initial reaction to Breaking Bad was the opposite of Michael's. I was intriqued by the premise. After three seasons, it's one of my favorite television shows of all time (and I remember watching Lost in Space in prime time!)
Breaking Bad is delicious dark comedy because it is so rich in irony. Irony you can cut with a knife. I have a theory that irony in fiction runs contrary to the conservative psyche. I am a conservative, but I find irony entertaining – I believe that is very unusual in a conservative.
It's often been observed that staunch conservatives have difficulty writing solid fiction, particularly comedy. I believe that is the direct result of conservatives not enjoying and appreciating irony. They just do not fathom it. But irony is ESSENTIAL to great fiction! This mental block about irony prevents many conservatives from appreciating (and writing!) the best fiction.
Ironically, many of the great stories written by liberals begin with a conservative character who arcs into a liberal outlook. So how about stories about liberals who arc to conservative values? Conservatives say, "Shut up! I do not want to see a story about such a character!"
The sociopath is successful as a dramatic device. Real heroes tend to mind their business, pay their taxes, and work hard. Very boring.
Villians are the most coveted role because they are Doing Something Interesting. The sociopath — as long as his victims choose to be drug users, gangsters, overbearing cops — is a fusion of the hero and villian.
Most American heroes are loner, antisocial types that are just a knife's throw from sociopath.
Dirty Harry and all 70s vigilantes. Batman. Gunslingers. Wild Bill Hickok. Wyatt Earp. Privateers. And on and on…
Crap! I haven't seen any of Season Three! Thanks for the spoilers!
Or the last four episodes of Season Two! Guess I need to stay away from this thread.
In the Batman graphic novel "The Killing Joke", the Joker has an exchange with Batman in which he says, "You know the difference between you and me? One. Bad. Day."
Whether it's just a single day that turns your world into a mess, or a bunch of little bad days that add up, some people reach their breaking point.
Or was put in a lose-lose situation where no decision was right. Either die of cancer and leave his family a mess after he's gone, or turn to the dark side and at least give them financial security.
Of course the consequences of taking the dark route turn out much worse than he ever expected, which makes BB a true cautionary tale.
I agree. There has to be a time where Walter has to pay the piper.
There is a big difference between entertainment and propaganda. I'm thinking you might be looking for a conservative propaganda channel that provides no conflict and just plays vignettes of the perfect life that conservatism provides or barely veiled sermons on how to be better people. For one, no one wants to watch that. For two, the world is a messy place and these kinds of shows don't shy away from that. However, they also don't shy away from showing what the consequences of bad decisions are and are therefore moral. And thats what people want, entertainment that reinforces their sense of what is right without shoving it down their throats or hitting them over the head. Liberal Hollywood doesn't get that, which is why you don't see shows of this caliber very often. But as they realize they can make money writing morality plays that are believeable, I'm hoping we will see more of these and less liberal claptrap.
"Part of my problem is that I see the negative side of life so much in the real world that I do not want to dwell on it in my spare time."
I couldn't agree more, but sometimes it's good to see someone else (ficticious preferred) go through much worse in order to put your own bad experiences into persepective.
I've never seen Breaking Bad but personally, I love me some Dexter. It's got genius writing, the characters are very interesting, and my favorite part about the show is that the guy actually kills people THAT DESERVE IT and should've been executed to begin with.
To me, the purpose of great fiction is to encourage thought process, and the sociopath/hero opens up new avenues for that purpose. Getting one's head around the entire good vs. evil thing, at some point requires the study of evil, and it's formation and evolution, for comparison's sake. I love dark humor, and irony, and enjoyed Dexter, until I "got" the premise. Breaking Bad, I have been unable to get into.
Dexter was actually created by his sociopath of an adopted father, who really believed that he had "good intentions", channeling the "unavoidable" behavior of a kid who was "destined" to be a serial killer…a concept I found interesting. Walt, despite Cranston's undeniable talents as an actor, has just not been able to make me LIKE him enough to care about the exploration of the topic
Dexter doesn't glamorize anything as he openly regrets his lack of humanity and faces very bad repercussions for doing what he does. The only thing that show sheds a positive light on is the idea of vigilantism picking where our mostly failed court system leaves off.
With all due respect, your opinion of that show and the others you mentioned sounds more like you never actually watched them to begin with, though if you have, then you're clearly misunderstanding them.
The word you are searching for is … WOMEN. Women will put up with (in entertainment certainly) characters that are brutal, amoral, even psychopathic (see "Dexter") as long as they are the biggest, baddest man in the room. Women care above all (in entertainment at least) for status, power, a certain modified sadism towards other men, intermittent (but not too much) protection of Leading ladies, and social dominance.
Since TV is dominated by a female-gay audience, and writing/producing staff, big surprise that sexy psychopaths are what interest them and what is shown on TV.
Compare/contrast female shows like Breaking Bad, or Vampire Diaries, or Gossip Girl, and the male characters, with say, the themes inherent in the NFL: leadership (totally absent in the sexy psychopath shows), self-sacrifice, father figures (again totally absent) mentoring younger men, disparate men uniting in pursuit of a goal, and so on.
This does not make men or women "better" but does mean difference. Including, intriguingly, the end of pedestalization and outmoded, Victorian era Chivalry-White Knighting when it comes to understanding the deep rooted gender differences between men and women in the kinds of men they like to see onscreen in entertainment.
Yeah, I picked up on that right away. I guess we just have to overlook the obvious inconsistencies and realize that although a lot of it is clearly contrived, the overall theme is coherent and entertaining.
Part 1 of 2: It's difficult for me to read this, because I can't stand Quentin Tarantino and/or his work, and have normally eschewed entertainment that asks us to root for the bad guy. After being turned off on the idea after watching Walter Matthau as Charley Varrick, and having never seen Godfather, Goodfellas, or Scarface, I discovered Breaking Bad in a post-Mad Men VCR accident and was hooked. But while Twitter was buzzing like a hive about the explosive May 2 Bad episode, I was ambivalent – most of the praise was rooted in the emotional jolt in the gory parking lot fight. One guy tweeted, "Wait, I have a chemistry degree… They make how much money?" To which I replied, "All the money in the world. Minus your family, loved ones, and your soul. Pay attention."
Hi, I was thinking of you when I posted this
Maybe I will try to give the show a watch. Too many people who's opinions I trust, like it, but none of them have my background, so I am sckeptical. For them its just a story, for me …
Part 2 of 2: After last June's Season 2 finale, I posted the following at Hot Air's Green Room:
You must be logged in to post a comment.