Skip to main content

is "breaking bad" breaking bad history?

source
if you're friends with me on facebook, you probably know that i have an ongoing thing called "sunday
quiz time", where i just ask random questions to my friends and often get very interesting answers. it's a little more intermittent than it used to be, but i still love getting the responses, so i've been trying to keep it going.

if you live in north america and, i suspect, anywhere else in the world where you're exposed to american popular culture, you'll be aware that the amc show "breaking bad" is ending tonight.

i haven't watched it, ever, because i haven't yet succumbed to the twenty-first century and gotten a netflix account and amc isn't part of my cable package. i am curious to see the show, because i've heard it's a writer's fantasy, where cautious, constrained scripting and deliberate character development is king. it's the kind of thing that never happens in popular entertainment, because the last thing that that anyone who counts is interested in is writing. [if i'm wrong and you hate it, don't correct me. i'll find out on my own time, but for the moment i'd like to cling to the idea that good writing can still count for something.]

but despite my own ignorance of the show, i couldn't help being inundated by the talk about what's going to happen in the grand finale. so i chose the following as today's "sunday quiz time" question :

"what is the greatest t.v. show finale of all time?"



the clear winner- pretty much the only one to receive multiple votes, was "newhart".



there were, of course, many responses, but what struck me among the comedy classics and sci-fi/ fantasy favourites, there was one thing notably missing: dramas. in fact, the only one to make the list was "the sopranos" and any television fan will tell you that raising the series shocking final moments in conversation is way more controversial than talking religion or politics.



i have a strict "no dissing other people's choices" policy on "sunday quiz time", but i know for a fact that i have friends who fall into the "unfettered brilliance" and "utter bullshit" camps.

when you look at virtually every other dramatic series that has captured popular attention, particularly since television has [almost] eclipsed film as the destination for quality in "serious" entertainment, what you hear most often is that by the time it's reached the end of its run, the show had overstayed its welcome. ["dexter" ended last week, its producers knowing better than to try to go head-to-head with the "breaking bad" steamroller. how much discussion did you hear about that? i plan on forcing myself to watch the final season at some point, but it's not something i'm looking forward to. you can read more about that here.]

on the contrary, people are amped for the "breaking bad" finale, in a way that i've only seen once before for a dramatic series- "the sopranos". with writers ratcheting up the tension in recent weeks and two of the show's stars, bryan cranston and anna gunn, describing the ending as "apocalyptic" at last week's emmy awards, there's a distinct possibility that this could be the series that defies history and provides a satisfying conclusion for its die-hard fans. or perhaps it'll just go for something tortuous, as "the sopranos" did. [he died, people. he was killed and you're seeing it from his perspective.] [so you say -ed.]

what's even more interesting, to me at least, is that "breaking bad" seems poised to drive the final nail in the coffin of film as the medium of "serious" writers and producers. after all, the series [and no, i haven't seen it, but i know enough about it to make this statement] is really about the boundaries of morality, which is a pretty heavy subject to tackle. and it's the sort of thing that film studios, who increasingly need bigger and bigger returns to make their investment worthwhile, just can't afford to take on. a reporter on cnn this morning pointed out that michael j. fox's new sitcom got more viewer's than "breaking bad" last week, but you wouldn't know that from the frenzy that's happening on line. i have a feeling no one is going to be talking about episode two of "the michael j. fox show" tomorrow over the water cooler. and it's even less likely that anyone will be discussing any of the films that are about to be released as part of "oscar season".

that's right. in case you'd forgotten, the autumn is when all the pictures that are supposed to represent the year's greatest accomplishments are supposed to come out, but nothing, nothing has commanded the sort of rapt attention that the "breaking bad" finale has. because audiences are discovering that having a vehicle that gives you years to get to know characters and care about them and that allows tension to build over weeks and months has the potential to be so much more powerful than something that condenses the experience into a couple of hours.

so godspeed you, "breaking bad". i will get around to watching you soon, probably binging on an entire season at a time or something crazy like that. in the meantime, there's no pressure. i'm just thinking that you might reverse a fifty year-old tide of disappointment in bringing dramas to a close and eclipse the movie industry in quality if you do things right.

no big thing.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

jihadvertising?

i keep seeing this ad for tictac candies:



am i the only one who finds the suicide bomber clown at the end a little unnerving? all the nice natural things like the bunny and the [extinct] woolly mammoth and the fruit get devoured by a trying-to-appear-nonthreatening-but-obviously-psychotic clown who then blows himself up. congratulations, tictac, i think this ad has landed you on about a dozen watch lists.

oh and by the way, showing me that your product will somehow cause my stomach to explode in a rainbow of wtf makes me believe that doing consuming tictacs would be a worse dietary decision than the time i ate two raw eggs and a half a bottle of hot sauce on a dare.

the world at war?

in my semi-smug but genuinely curious way, i posted a question on my facebook page earlier: how much of the world has to be at war before it counts as world war iii?



the first response i got raised the very legitimate point that this is the sort of question that gets answered by historians, once the haze of the present has faded. the other important factor is that people don't just declare war on each other the way that they used to. major powers entered both the of the world wars with the blessings of their own parliaments, whereas conflicts since world war ii have happened in coded language, sometimes circumventing the political process in the interests of expediency. president reagan never declared war on the nicaraguan government in the eighties, for example, but the united states was clearly in a state of armed conflict, even if most of the arms were being carried by their proxies, the contras.

whether or not we are living in a world at war is a tricky question. despite what…

mental health mondays :: pop quiz

those of you who are friends of mine on facebook [that might look a little weird to those of you seeing this post on facebook] may have seen my weekly "sunday quiz time", where i just ask random questions in the name of stimulating conversation. after doing that this week, i ended up taking a very wide variety of quizzes on mental floss, which made me a little smug about my knowledge of geography and a little rattled about my knowledge of the finer points of grammar. [i want to say, in my defense, that the one grammar quiz i found was really f**king hard. is that last sentence grammatically correct? i don't know. i have no confidence in my grammar anymore.]

i got so into answering questions about just about anything that i thought it might be fun to apply that format to mental health mondays. i've already done links to quizzes about various mental disorders and how to tell if you have them [i think it turned out i had all of them], but i wanted to do a special set of…