As a general rule, I don't watch TV. I don't own one - it's just not my thing. And I'm not being high and mighty on my "better than thou" horse here: the internet is nearly fatally distractive to me, and I guess I can only drown to one singing siren at a time.
Keeping that in mind, I sincerely hope that Television does not conjure anything that is as skillfully conceived and executed as Breaking Bad for some time yet to come. I don't think I could handle the responsibility.
(what follows is a response to the most recent episode "Ozymandias." Yes, this is something of a divergence from the usual stuff I like to talk about, yes, there are spoilers.)
Apparently this episode is the creator's (Vince Gilligan) favorite, and though I think it is risky to put out what you consider to be your best work two episodes before what should be a continuous build up to a bang of an end, but the very premise of the show dictates that the shows climax be at some point before the end, so I guess it is an unavoidable reality.
Every article written about the show has some necessary nod to the fact that it is unique in the way it portrays a changing character that deals with a long and increasingly disconcerting string of challenges to his sense of morality. Of course this is true, but a more accurate and nuanced take on what makes Breaking Bad so great is the combined forces of the writers' ability to come up with a logical succession of realistic situational conundrums for Walt to solve and Bryan Cranston's incredible ability to act out a reaction that balances his character's psychopathic need for greatness with his allegiance to family and his battered (but everpresent) moral compass.
You can see this principle in action every time he deals with the prospect of killing someone. His despair over the glass plate discovery when he realizes he has to kill Crazy 8, his first choice to try and disappear instead of kill Gus Fring, his reluctance to kill Jesse, giving himself up to Hank rather than harm him - these are my favorite moments in Breaking Bad. The question of whether or not Walt will take one more step towards his transition to Scarface or let his Mister Chips side speak is asked repeatedly throughout the Show's history, and it is these moments that drive the plot forward, keeping people both interested and invested.
Yes, Walt's orchestration of Fring's death is exhilarating, yes, we enjoy seeing the creativity with which he builds his meth empire, but those things are nothing more than smart plot points. Smart plot points exist on a lot of television shows and are not particularly unique, watching Walt grapple with the path he has taken every step of the way on the other hand, is unique.
Take that away and the show falls apart.
The final situational conundrum for this show is how Walt is going to exit the stage. It is very clear that this will be a dismal ending for everyone involved, particularly Walt, and there is certainly a good bit of rubbernecking about that fact, but we as viewers are truly invested in finding out which version of him will surface in response to the challenges his new reality face - the nuts and bolts of how he responds to that reality are certainly fun, but they will not be the feature of Breaking Bad that keeps people talking.
That question has been answered.
Walt's phone confession tonight was descriptive of the worst possible morality Walt could possibly reach. He feigned a diabolical willingness to kill and emotionally batter those he loves most, his family, if they stand in the way of his greatness. He gloated that personally murdering a family member (Hank) was completely justified in his quest for greatness and that he would not hesitate to do it again to his own wife if it became necessary. He used fear and threats rather than cunning manipulation to get his way.
Throughout the show, his loyalty to his family has been the one saving grace for his character. Without it there really would not be any debate as to whether or not he is a redeemable character and the sneering maniac his family and the eavesdropping police heard through that phone settled the debate in their minds once and for all. He is unapologetic and uncompromising. He is a monster in their eyes, and his confession ensures that that fact will be his legacy.
But it's more complicated than that - Walt sacrificed himself. There is no doubt that Walt has become a despicable person, but his final sacrificial act leaves the book wide open as to whether or not he is redeemable. What's more, it's up to Skyler and the Audience to decide. No one else is fully aware of what is going on and therefore the writers cant use the opinions of other characters to take sides. The debate could go on forever.
And that's why his final actions - returning Holly to Skyler and protecting his family through his phone confession - represent the show's climax. The final moral question has been answered. Vince Gilligan and Co have figured out a complex and ambiguous way to allow Walt's humanity to shine through and while they did it, they wrenched your heart out while they did it, and Bryan Cranston's ability to be a tearful and sympathetic monster who is dying not from cancer, but from the slow torment of being fully aware that he has personally destroyed everything he loves in life, was the spoon they used to dig it out.
That emotional journey will be the defining experience of Breaking Bad.
The two remaining episodes will play out. It will be fun, it will be smart, it will be grotesque, it will be shocking, it will be a great many things. But it will not be as significant and as climactic as what we saw tonight. The question has already been posed to us, much like in the eponymous poem: can anything valuable be found in those lone and level sands stretching far away.
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Sunday, July 21, 2013
The fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity in terms of violence or vile ethical frameworks has absolutely nothing to do with the relative amounts of bloodshed, violent punishment or misogyny. There is so much backwards nonsense in both books that attempting to tally a score is as pointless and ineffective as it is impossible. How does Moses' advocation of stoning the sexually immoral stack up against Muhammad's evident view that women are less capable creatures?
Who cares. Any book that contains such passages was not inspired by any deity I would trust with something as mundane as my 16 year old junker of a car, let alone something as complex and volatile as my personal morality and search for meaning.
And who cares, the various religious cultures have proven to be capable of remarkable feats of both suppression and amplification of these outdated historical relics. The specific content of a religious text matters less than the cultural environment and the motivations of those who use these books for instruction in their lives.
But there is a structural difference, at least at present, that makes one tradition far more humane than the other.
According to what one could describe as conventional or widely accepted Christian tradition, the Old Testament requirements have been nullified by Christ's success as the idealized sacrificial lamb.
This provides Christians with an escape clause. This allows their moral compass to diverge from God's commands somewhat. Mind you this was not an easy conclusion to reach and there was significant debate in the early church about the role of the Old Testament law. Things could have, and at various times have, gone the other way and in an alternate but plausible historical timeline out culture could much more beholden to Mosaic edicts.
Islam does not have an equivalent. Indeed there is a majority of Muslims who live according to their moral compass and ignore various attributes and commands of Allah in order to exist as a progressed society, however this is entirely a result of either an ignorance or an ignoring of certain key aspects of Mohammedan ethics. There is no formalized structure that allows them to skimp on their application of this "absolute truth" as there is in Christianity.
I hope they come up with one just like the Christians did. There is too much adherence to the Quran in the Muslim world these days and formally nullifying significant chunks of it would benefit just about everyone.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
One common theme I've come across in my discussions with Christians about things like the nature of God is this attempt to paint a picture of Him as beleaguered father, who has made the difficult but responsible decision to cut his children loose, allow them to make their mistakes, but still strive patiently with them and provide a way back to grace when they come and see my ways.
This metaphor of "God the father" of course is very well known, but I don't think people generally have an adequate appreciation of how literally this concept is understood. God the father has a relatable, emotional dilemma and is forced - just as you or I would - to do the right thing by us (his children) and just as anyone parent would understand, that right thing always comes with trade offs.
This sort of personification possesses an incredible power. The sense of comradery and understanding from an all powerful being is one of the many tactics used from the pulpit that bring the ever malleable concept of the Judeo-Christian God to fit the emotional needs of a congregation.
But it is a tactic that comes with baggage.
Any time the notion of God made more accessible and is brought down from some abstract concept that is beyond our ability to perceive to a very human or physical basis, that concep is immediately brought down to a place where he can be scrutinized, questioned, criticized and yes, disproven.
If God didn't have an incorrect opinion on how the world began, or the timeline of certain historical milestones, then we would be oblivious to his failings on the matter. If God didn't behave exactly as you would expect the god of a violent Bronze Age tribe to behave, then maybe we would be more inclined to take him seriously in the 21st century.
So how about fatherhood? What about the metaphor of God being a responsible father places his now relatable, human attributes under criticism.
I was asked this question in a slightly different manner recently when a friend asked me how, as a hypothetical all powerful being, I would go about creating a world in which free will is possible and be loving at the same time? Clearly God, who is now brought down to relatable human terms, couldn't have possibly done anything different and his extension of free will is the only loving course of action for him. Right?
So what would I do? It's simple really:
I would make it so that sin was not hereditary.
As the creator of all living things and the rules we play by, God must have at some point decided to make it so that the sin of one man can render all of his descendants worthy of eternal damnation regardless of their personal decisions.
Of course my main criticism against this is simply that it is unfair and very clearly not loving, but more importantly it is extremely unnecessary. I've asked a few theists this question, and no one hs ever even gander end a guess as to why it is either necessary or good.
That is how I would be a more responsible God than God. I would not arbitrarily condemn every subsequent generation. I would respect free choice.
How would you be a better God?