2017.66/67/68: Breaking Bad Seasons 3 – 5
My colleague at work who lent me his DVD boxsets warned me not to expect much of the final season. “I didn’t like where it went- I thought it spoiled the whole thing,” he told me. Well, endings of tv shows are funny things, and some work for some people, and they don’t for others. I’ve remarked on this before, in shows like BSG I’ve really enjoyed what I felt were satisfying endings- in shows like Dexter, not so much. Of course, it’s impossible for showrunners to keep everybody happy, but I think for the ending of a show to be satisfying, it has to be honest to the internal logic of the show and how it started. As if you can follow an imaginary through-line from episode one to episode xx and think, yeah, that makes sense, it works.
In the case of Breaking Bad, contrary to my work colleague, I think it works. Indeed, in many ways it was the only way it could end, and I figure that as I’ve watched this series so long after everyone else has, spoilers can be cast aside. Walter had to die- he was dying from the very start, and it was the cause of everything he did. Whether he died the way he should have, well, I guess that’s the crux of the argument for fans. Did he deserve a noble death, a death with purpose, or a death dying of cancer in prison? Was he a good guy or a bad guy, and what is the morality in the ending of the show? We are clearly supposed to be rooting for him from the first episode, but by the final episode, are we supposed to be hating him? If so, then Bryan Cranston is possibly too sympathetic/charismatic an actor for that to fully convince.
For me that’s the biggest question of the whole series- was Walter a good guy caught in a bad situation, just digging himself deeper all the time he tried to dig himself out of trouble, or was he a bad guy trying to justify his actions by using his family as an excuse. Frankly, was he enjoying it too much, or was it a case of the end justifying the means? There was certainly a tipping-point in season three when he just seemed to go over some edge. I think it would be fascinating to watch it all over again, see season one through the eyes of someone who has seen season five, with the almost Godlike-perspective of Fate, seeing the beginning while knowing where things go, how actions unfold and everything unravels.
Not that I think that necessarily has to make sense, like there’s some moral high ground. In some of the best moments of Breaking Bad, it seemed deliberately morally obscure, as if I was watching Chaos Theory in action. Sometimes I thought that maybe the showrunners were throwing the various season’s arc-cards up in the air and seeing where they fell. It was exciting but also inherently flawed at times- the ambiguity was great but possibly counter to traditionally satisfying storytelling.
Regards Breaking Bad‘s greatness, sure, it’s a great show, but counter to some claims likely not the best show ever made (a ridiculous claim to make of any tv show, really). There were a few twists and turns that didn’t feel right, a few character turns that didn’t fully convince, in order to enable a run of five seasons. I think I tighter run of three seasons would have enabled a firmer, more realistic story. But that’s being picky. Breaking Bad is a superior television series, indeed one of the very best ever made. Some individual episodes were sheer perfection and the show always managed to deliver some twists and turns I didn’t see coming (no small feat, really, considering all the tv shows and movies I’ve seen over the years). The cast were terrific, and I’m really keen to discover if prequel spin-off Better Call Saul is worth watching, if it is, then yay, another treat to look forward to!
Breaking Bad is clearly another case for the argument that we are living in a Golden Age of television, and that the best television shows are of far better quality than anything we see at the cinema now. Praise enough, there, I think.