When Heisenberg Wins, Campbell and the Greeks Lose

4
Watercooler Journal Feb. 2014 1 When Heisenberg Wins, Campbell and the Greeks Lose Sam Stecklow and Peter McCracken Columbia College Chicago, Class of 2017 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Class of 2016 Breaking Bad, more than anything, invented a new genre of TV: the novel. It was the first non- miniseries show to have a clear open-and-closed story—more than The Sopranos (which David Chase kept trying to end, only to have HBO back truckloads of money into his front yard until he agreed to another season), more than Deadwood (which never had a proper ending), and more than any one-season wonders like Freaks & Geeks or Firefly (I’ve never seen The Wire, to my continuing shame, so I can’t speak to it here). Vince Gilligan’s magnum opus is objectively influential and a great achievement, to be sure. Too bad it’s not very good. A hypothetical: if you read a fascinating, deeply raw, emotional book about good and evil, morality, and all that, but it didn’t quite stick the ending, would it be a good book or a noble

description

Sam Stecklow tells us why BREAKING BAD compromises itself at the last minute for our Feb. issue.

Transcript of When Heisenberg Wins, Campbell and the Greeks Lose

Page 1: When Heisenberg Wins, Campbell and the Greeks Lose

Watercooler Journal Feb. 2014 1

When Heisenberg Wins, Campbell and the Greeks Lose

Sam Stecklow and Peter McCracken

Columbia College Chicago, Class of 2017 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Class of 2016

Breaking Bad, more than anything, invented a new genre of TV: the novel. It was the first non-

miniseries show to have a clear open-and-closed story—more than The Sopranos (which David

Chase kept trying to end, only to have HBO back truckloads of money into his front yard until

he agreed to another season), more than Deadwood (which never had a proper ending), and

more than any one-season wonders like Freaks & Geeks or Firefly (I’ve never seen The Wire, to

my continuing shame, so I can’t speak to it here). Vince Gilligan’s magnum opus is objectively

influential and a great achievement, to be sure. Too bad it’s not very good.

A hypothetical: if you read a fascinating, deeply raw, emotional book about good and evil,

morality, and all that, but it didn’t quite stick the ending, would it be a good book or a noble

Page 2: When Heisenberg Wins, Campbell and the Greeks Lose

Watercooler Journal Feb. 2014 2

failure? The ending is one of the hardest things to write for anything, but if a book I loved had

an ending that compromised everything before it, I wouldn’t consider that book a success. This

is exactly how I view Breaking Bad. That puts it in good company—Wuthering Heights, David

Copperfield, and Huckleberry Finn are all classic books whose endings can’t cut it against their

earlier chapters.

Let me back up. Before the series finale, I was a huge Breaking Bad fan. It was all I thought

about. It was all I could think about. It was an endlessly intricate portrait of human greed,

neuroses, insecurities, love—emotion. It was a show about raw emotion and morality dressed

up as a simple good vs. evil tale. It still is all of those things. It’s just not intellectually or

thematically honest.

“Vince Gilligan said from the beginning that he loved all of the characters, including Walter—I guess I just didn’t take

him seriously.”

The series finale is Breaking Bad’s undoing: very simply, Walter White gets everything he

wants. He cuts all his loose ends. He takes care of everything and everyone, from Jesse to

Skyler to... Lydia (that the show descended into Todd and Lydia vs. Walter in the end is a

different issue for a different piece). Walter even died the way he wanted to; he got to choose

his own death. Here is one of the greatest fictional monsters, and he got to go out his way.

I guess it’s really my fault for misreading the show. Vince Gilligan said from the beginning that

he loved all of the characters, including Walter—I guess I just didn’t take him seriously.

Breaking Bad, for all its intricacies, is a fairly straightforward story. Like another one of the best

shows of the 2010s, Community, Breaking Bad follows Joseph Campbell’s writings to a very

deep extent. Walter White is Campbell’s idea of a hero, or at least Walter believes himself to

be. He exists in a society he sees as imbalanced, and his pride prevents him from accepting

financial help even though he needs it. This begins his road to becoming Heisenberg. Through

a series of traumatic events and awful decisions that Walter makes, he gains what Campbell

called “supernatural powers,” embodied by his drug-dealing alter ego, Heisenberg. As

Heisenberg, he believes he exists separately from the regular rules of human morality.

Page 3: When Heisenberg Wins, Campbell and the Greeks Lose

Watercooler Journal Feb. 2014 3

Heisenberg is Walter’s super-ego—his dark morals and values tainted by self-exclusion from

society—manifested in a personality.

All this is good and well for the run of the show until the finale. Campbell’s hero formula

requires order to be shoved back into place at the end by the hero killing his alter ego. Thus,

the main conflict in the latter half of Breaking Bad isn’t between Walter and Skyler or Walter

and Jesse, it’s between Walter and Heisenberg. But by the last shot of the finale, order hasn’t

been put back into place—or rather, Walter’s order hasn’t. Heisenberg’s altered perception of

reality and what constituted imbalance of order took over completely, not only for Walter but

for Gilligan himself.

Walter White, the man with two children, died along with his brother-in-law in “Ozymandias.”

The last two episodes of the series after “Ozymandias,” “Granite State” and “Felina,” feel like

a very abrupt shift, no doubt in part AMC’s fault for cutting Gilligan’s episode order some years

ago, and they don’t go over well. With Walter dying before Heisenberg in “Ozymandias,” the

Campbell formula couldn’t have possibly extended itself in order to encompass the final two

episodes. The show therefore took a turn towards a much more ancient story structure—

Page 4: When Heisenberg Wins, Campbell and the Greeks Lose

Watercooler Journal Feb. 2014 4

tragedy by way of playwrights such as Sophocles. In Greek tragedy, catharsis is the goal, and a

happy ending is decidedly not. The scene is set with upheaval, and the story is there to provide

the main character’s death. The protagonist’s sacrifice restores balance in an imbalanced world

and brings about pity and fear in the audience. Most importantly, audience members need to

pity the hero so fully that they cannot rationalize his actions, while also fearing their

consequences so that order can be preserved beyond theater doors. In a sense, Gilligan used

Walter to incite pity and fear in the audience for years, as evidenced by the throngs of Breaking

Bad fans defending “badass” Walter to the death on Twitter—they were justifying the pity and

fear in their minds planted by Gilligan.

Obviously, a show doesn’t need to fit into any one narrative formula to be creatively successful.

More shows should try to break the rules like Breaking Bad, and I’m sure many more will. But

due to either Gilligan’s unwillingness to stick to his guns and follow through with the

Walter/Heisenberg showdown he’d been setting up or AMC’s cut to the episode order,

Breaking Bad just missed being a truly brilliant novelistic show. I can’t wait to watch whatever

Gilligan has coming up, and I’m sure he’ll surpass Breaking Bad in the future. For the time, it is

a great example of how to create one of the best artistic endeavors in any medium and just

miss sticking the ending.

image credits, in order: ©AMC/Lionsgate, via http://themoviemash.com ©AMC/Lionsgate, via http://breakingbad.wikia.com