Monday, 25 November 2013
Sunday, 10 November 2013
Breaking Bad, Part 3--I'm Over The Feels Now
Hello hello, and welcome back for the final installment!
So; a couple of weeks ago, I mainlined Breaking Bad. I thought two posts would be enough, but I realized there was one tantalizing issue I hadn't explored fully. In fact, I hadn't seen much of it around the internet. That issue is simple--what about the women? While the mens are running around getting blow'd up and taking down gangsters, what are the female cast members doing?
At this point, I have to dock a mark or two from the series. It's still excellent, but in spite of some very good moves, there were a lot of genre cliches. Gilligan, like Steven Moffat of Doctor Who and Sherlock fame, seems to have a problem I've noticed in quite a few male writers otherwise known for quality--they can write an interesting woman, but they can really only write one woman, or perhaps two or three if they're skilled. I do quite like both Moffat and Gilligan's writing, but this really does bother me. And that's not the only thing.
Let's go through the named female characters and get started with the one that bothered me most: Jane. Obviously, I'm leaving out Walter's principal/colleague person because I can't remember her actually doing anything other than responding to Walter, Wendy the hooker, the receptionist at Saul's, and a few of the drop-in mothers, etc. Now, I'm going to remind you all that there are going to be
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
So if you haven't seen the show, really, either watch it and finish it, or be prepared for the fact that you're going to learn some stuff that might seriously spoil plot twists.
As soon as she showed up in series 2--I mean season 2, sorry, I've been watching a lot of British television--I knew she was dead meat. She was flirting with Jesse, she was a Cute But Remote Goth Girl, and she was an ex-junkie. In other words, dead meat. She did get an interesting character arc, I suppose. I mean, I really enjoyed it, but it certainly couldn't be called unpredictable. As her storyline went on, I remember muttering at the computer, "please don't make her into a Girlfriend in a Fridge. Please don't make her into a Girlfriend in a Fridge." And guess what? They did. There is nothing I can say about this other than to express my disdain that Gilligan introduced a character for the sole purpose of killing her off for Jesse Pinkman's personal development. BOO BOO SHAME BOO. That's awfully cheap.
This character was interesting, in that she was presented a few times in the first season and had a pretty interesting role--the 'might-have-been' girlfriend of Walter White. She was actually a really interesting character, both condescending and sympathetic. (My, that word interesting comes up a lot.) However, after a truly undeserved tongue-lashing from Walter, she complete disappeared. BYE! *waves* That is, until the final season, when she was one half of a human plot-device by way of the Elliots. I'm assuming something happened with the actress, but I liked her and hoped to see more of her than we did. Her writing was unfortunately quite thin, and the moments where she was unsympathetic seemed really contrived. Oh, well. At least the worst thing that happened to her was a laser pointer and some embarrassment.
Oh, Lydia. Just in case you thought Marie was too laid back and sympathetic, we got...Lydia! I almost liked Lydia; she was a love-to-hate character, but without Marie's moments of compassion. I enjoyed the fact that she was in a position of power, but what did one of our only mover-and-shaker characters do? Cringe, cry, and moan to manipulate the d00dz, of course, even leveraging her child to guilt Walter. She was even grossed out by dead bodies. Really, Lids? Really? Even Joss Whedon did a decent job of making the Black Widow playful in The Avengers, and made a point of giving her a chance to get the upper hand on Loki. And considering she was one of the weakest characters, that's saying something. Lydia was whiny, underpowered, and a wuss. I was really, really hoping she'd pull out a gun and go all cold, but nope. I'm pretty sure there's not a single person who didn't cheer when she got a packet of ricin-laced Stevia. Would have been nice to get some sympathetic moments, especially since she was deviously clever, but nope.
Oh, Marie. For all the complaining about Skyler, which we'll get to in a moment, it was Marie that bothered me. Her character development was so...fragmented and inconsistent. What a disappointment. In addition to being annoyingly high-strung (sometimes humorously so), she was loyal, protective, and a completely reactive character. Sure, there are women like this, and the actress did a great job, but it would have been nice to see her do more. Be more sympathetic. I'm not saying she needed combat boots and a big-ass gun (though that would have been hilarious and awesome), but just...something. I can't imagine her with Hank, and all of her desires (except for that neat shoplifting plot) were reactive. I do have to give her character points for the love and concern she showed, but she was kind of a human plot-complication. She showed up to annoy people and express concern. That was it. However, I do have some kind things to say about her sister.
So; a couple of weeks ago, I mainlined Breaking Bad. I thought two posts would be enough, but I realized there was one tantalizing issue I hadn't explored fully. In fact, I hadn't seen much of it around the internet. That issue is simple--what about the women? While the mens are running around getting blow'd up and taking down gangsters, what are the female cast members doing?
At this point, I have to dock a mark or two from the series. It's still excellent, but in spite of some very good moves, there were a lot of genre cliches. Gilligan, like Steven Moffat of Doctor Who and Sherlock fame, seems to have a problem I've noticed in quite a few male writers otherwise known for quality--they can write an interesting woman, but they can really only write one woman, or perhaps two or three if they're skilled. I do quite like both Moffat and Gilligan's writing, but this really does bother me. And that's not the only thing.
Let's go through the named female characters and get started with the one that bothered me most: Jane. Obviously, I'm leaving out Walter's principal/colleague person because I can't remember her actually doing anything other than responding to Walter, Wendy the hooker, the receptionist at Saul's, and a few of the drop-in mothers, etc. Now, I'm going to remind you all that there are going to be
So if you haven't seen the show, really, either watch it and finish it, or be prepared for the fact that you're going to learn some stuff that might seriously spoil plot twists.
 |
Source. The lovely and doomed Jane. |
Jane Margolis
As soon as she showed up in series 2--I mean season 2, sorry, I've been watching a lot of British television--I knew she was dead meat. She was flirting with Jesse, she was a Cute But Remote Goth Girl, and she was an ex-junkie. In other words, dead meat. She did get an interesting character arc, I suppose. I mean, I really enjoyed it, but it certainly couldn't be called unpredictable. As her storyline went on, I remember muttering at the computer, "please don't make her into a Girlfriend in a Fridge. Please don't make her into a Girlfriend in a Fridge." And guess what? They did. There is nothing I can say about this other than to express my disdain that Gilligan introduced a character for the sole purpose of killing her off for Jesse Pinkman's personal development. BOO BOO SHAME BOO. That's awfully cheap.
Gretchen Schwartz
This character was interesting, in that she was presented a few times in the first season and had a pretty interesting role--the 'might-have-been' girlfriend of Walter White. She was actually a really interesting character, both condescending and sympathetic. (My, that word interesting comes up a lot.) However, after a truly undeserved tongue-lashing from Walter, she complete disappeared. BYE! *waves* That is, until the final season, when she was one half of a human plot-device by way of the Elliots. I'm assuming something happened with the actress, but I liked her and hoped to see more of her than we did. Her writing was unfortunately quite thin, and the moments where she was unsympathetic seemed really contrived. Oh, well. At least the worst thing that happened to her was a laser pointer and some embarrassment.
Lydia Rodarte-Quayle
Oh, Lydia. Just in case you thought Marie was too laid back and sympathetic, we got...Lydia! I almost liked Lydia; she was a love-to-hate character, but without Marie's moments of compassion. I enjoyed the fact that she was in a position of power, but what did one of our only mover-and-shaker characters do? Cringe, cry, and moan to manipulate the d00dz, of course, even leveraging her child to guilt Walter. She was even grossed out by dead bodies. Really, Lids? Really? Even Joss Whedon did a decent job of making the Black Widow playful in The Avengers, and made a point of giving her a chance to get the upper hand on Loki. And considering she was one of the weakest characters, that's saying something. Lydia was whiny, underpowered, and a wuss. I was really, really hoping she'd pull out a gun and go all cold, but nope. I'm pretty sure there's not a single person who didn't cheer when she got a packet of ricin-laced Stevia. Would have been nice to get some sympathetic moments, especially since she was deviously clever, but nope.
 |
Women, according to Vince Gilligan. |
Marie Schrader
Oh, Marie. For all the complaining about Skyler, which we'll get to in a moment, it was Marie that bothered me. Her character development was so...fragmented and inconsistent. What a disappointment. In addition to being annoyingly high-strung (sometimes humorously so), she was loyal, protective, and a completely reactive character. Sure, there are women like this, and the actress did a great job, but it would have been nice to see her do more. Be more sympathetic. I'm not saying she needed combat boots and a big-ass gun (though that would have been hilarious and awesome), but just...something. I can't imagine her with Hank, and all of her desires (except for that neat shoplifting plot) were reactive. I do have to give her character points for the love and concern she showed, but she was kind of a human plot-complication. She showed up to annoy people and express concern. That was it. However, I do have some kind things to say about her sister.
Skyler White
Skyler, who started as an uptight failing writer and stay-at-home pregnant mom, was one of the best and most interesting characters on the show. Where Gilligan often rewrote the same 'almost nice, mostly neurotic' female character several times, he actually succeeded with Skyler. She's willing to be devious and even enjoyed it, was capable of being aggressive, and actually showed some backbone when Walter was abusive. Her daughter Holly popped in and out (did I mention that I hate human McGuffins?) at plot convenience, but Skyler actually tried to go out and do things. Did she succeed? Enh. However, that lack of success made her interesting! She had feelings about things that weren't related to Walter! She argued! She was unethical, but had a moral compass and struggled with it! The only thing that really bugged me was the way she had interests in writing and the plot was completely dropped in the rest of the show. (Writers don't work like that. I smell a failed plot thread.) Sure, she was bitchy, but most of the time, Walt really deserved her tongue-lashing. It's a cliche to have a female character act as the voice of decency in a wasteland, but her character brought life and personality to the role. Not merely a soapbox or a plot device, but a person, and an imperfect one at that. Skyler White is actually my favorite Breaking Bad character.
So, in addition to the 'rewritng the same woman' thing I've highlighted, my biggest complaint with the show is probably the lack of women with self-determination. All of the female characters above are attached to a man in some way. Lydia was attached to Mike (platonically) and was a villain; the rest were all romantically involved with male main characters in some way. I will give the show points for not resorting to cheap sexytimes that were out of character, but it was still so disappointing to see these interesting male characters complimented by half-deflated women.
Final Verdict
So, in addition to the 'rewritng the same woman' thing I've highlighted, my biggest complaint with the show is probably the lack of women with self-determination. All of the female characters above are attached to a man in some way. Lydia was attached to Mike (platonically) and was a villain; the rest were all romantically involved with male main characters in some way. I will give the show points for not resorting to cheap sexytimes that were out of character, but it was still so disappointing to see these interesting male characters complimented by half-deflated women.
 |
Women, according to most writers in Hollywood. I'm probably going to get in trouble for this. |
YO, BITCH, FIX IT!
So, as always, how would I fix it? My recommendation would have been to add a couple more female characters in there. It wouldn't have killed them to gender-swap a few minor characters. Yes, it was a realistic show about crime, and that's a misogynistic field, but if you can buy a Gatling-gun in a car trunk and a Walter White plan actually working at the end of the series, a couple of women shouldn't break your suspension of disbelief that much. That's just silly. I'm not saying Jesse should have been female (though that would have been interesting!) or that Hank and Marie could have been gender-swapped too, but--no, wait, that's exactly what I'm saying. Wimmenz don't always stick around the home to annoy their husbands. There's also more to us as a broad category than being pool sluts, inconvenient girlfriends, wistful exes, or villainous cry-babies.
Come on, Hollywood. We can work with this. Show us the goods. And while you're at it, maybe sneak a few gay people in through the side entrance? It would cost absolutely nothing to have more inclusive roles in TV, and would add so much to the possiblities and diversity of the cast, that I really hope we seem more stuff in the future. Orange is the New Black, which I have not watched, is apparently an imperfect show--but even touching on some issues has really made for interesting stuff and plenty of audience attention.
So, finally, stop using female characters as cheap character development black boxes, give the wimmenz some self-determination, and let ladies out of the home and into non-traditional roles. I'd prefer not to see tokenism here, but hell, at this point, anything would be nice for a change. Will it break immersion for some people? Maybe. However, it could also be a talking point, and when people are talking about your creative work, that is a Good Thing. Imagine that--thinking! Dialogue! Ultimately, I don't think being entertained should mean clicking the 'off switch' for one's higher cerebral functions. I didn't hate the show, and I still quite liked it, but this theme left me more disappointed than 'the greatest show in the history of TV' should have.
Come on, Hollywood. We can work with this. Show us the goods. And while you're at it, maybe sneak a few gay people in through the side entrance? It would cost absolutely nothing to have more inclusive roles in TV, and would add so much to the possiblities and diversity of the cast, that I really hope we seem more stuff in the future. Orange is the New Black, which I have not watched, is apparently an imperfect show--but even touching on some issues has really made for interesting stuff and plenty of audience attention.
So, finally, stop using female characters as cheap character development black boxes, give the wimmenz some self-determination, and let ladies out of the home and into non-traditional roles. I'd prefer not to see tokenism here, but hell, at this point, anything would be nice for a change. Will it break immersion for some people? Maybe. However, it could also be a talking point, and when people are talking about your creative work, that is a Good Thing. Imagine that--thinking! Dialogue! Ultimately, I don't think being entertained should mean clicking the 'off switch' for one's higher cerebral functions. I didn't hate the show, and I still quite liked it, but this theme left me more disappointed than 'the greatest show in the history of TV' should have.
*****
Thanks for dropping by the nest once again. Don't miss any of the phuquerie. Find Michelle on Twitter, Facebook, and on Tumblr. More interviews and witty commentaries are coming. Keep checking back to see those surprise posts, too. This is your darling SciFiMagpie, over and out!
Monday, 28 October 2013
Breaking Bad: A Brief Analysis, And--OH GOD MY FEELS (Part 2)
Hello hello!
Welcome back to my loose analysis and reaction to Breaking Bad. I'm just going to add the warning and get straight to the good stuff.Last week, I mentioned SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS, so prepare for those. Now, with the warning over with, get ready for some thinky bits as I explain why the show was ultimately worth the journey, at least for me.
The ultimate villain's journey
Even the ending, which shows the only Walter White plan that ever goes properly, is beautifully symmetrical with the first episode. Walter's character path leaves him somewhere between the kind-hearted and hapless schoolteacher of the first season and the ruthless bastard we see in the final season. The journey to get there--through evil and worsening deeds, rising greed and ruthlessness--costs him everything, including his jobs, his friends, his family, and finally, his life. However, Walter dies as a complete man. If most shows follow a hero's journey, this is surely a villain's journey--through loss and through the rising price of ambition, hubris and strengths that become faults exacting their toll. Walter was a mechanically adept man and a fine chemist, and his own reliance on his ingenious mind over the good advice or intentions of others was shown clearly throughout.
Another thing that's really interesting about Walter is that there is no Mephistopheles to lead him astray. He gets the idea of cooking meth on his own, and the series consistent, even ham-fisted, about showing that everything bad that happens is basically his fault. He involves himself with criminals. He sanctions the death of children. There's no dark angel talking him into it. At the end, the character confesses to Skyler that he did it all for himself, not his family. As a viewer, one is left with disturbing reflections on how often a noble intent is rationalized to be for someone else's sake when it's really selfish at the core. Hold on, folks; I need to make a note for future works...
There isn't much I can say about this character's path and portrayal--it really is close to perfect, and certainly gave me a lot to think about as it regards a simultaneously sympathetic and despicable villain. There were many times that I wanted to reach through my computer and strangle Walter White, especially when he was abusive towards Skyler. And speaking of strangling...
 |
Source. You can practically see the devil behind the desk. |
Holy crap, violence
I wasn't prepared for all the violence, I have to admit. The thing that really got me stewing was that the crimes perpetrated by Walter White and the people he hurt. There is a lot of collateral damage in this series. I have to say, it's probably one of the most effective anti-drug advertisements I've ever seen. The drug users get off lightly compared to the meth cookers. At best, a conviction and a bad drug habit; at worst, various forms of death could be expected.
And when it comes to death, there was a certain glee in the perpetration. Counting the jet, almost three hundred people die over the five seasons. And oh, what deaths--explosions, shoot-outs, a crashed plane, death by bike lock, ricin poisoning, ATM-head-crushing, death by turtle-severed-head bomb, being strangled with a chain, and, of course, death by jury-rigged machine gun in the trunk of a car. That's not counting all the cases of people being slapped, punched, turned into organ slurry with acid after death, or brutal beatings. I do love a black comedy, and I'm not scared of death or violence in general, but I really prefer reading about it to watching it. The unflinching brutality was very disturbing, even if it was somewhat realistic.
Societal commentary
It was dropped in the last couple of seasons, but I also really enjoyed the biting commentary on racial profiling with Hispanics. It was most prominent in the first season, but Hank's racist comments, the arrest of the janitor while two middle-class white guys got off scott free, and the looks Hank's partner Gomez gave him from time to time spoke volumes. It was a real shame that all the class stuff really fell by the wayside in later seasons; I missed the incisive commentary on insurance companies and the healthcare system, too. The dynamics of his family and the brilliant depictions of addiction in the first and second season really fell by the wayside after about the third; while Jesse's travails still show the progression, the show sort of lost interest in its earlier topics to focus on how badass Walter becomes. I disapproved.
Final thoughts
*****
Friday, 25 October 2013
Breaking Bad: A Brief Analysis, And--OH GOD MY FEELS (Part 1)
Hello hello!
So, I should clarify something--I don't want TV. I really, really don't watch TV. I haven't had cable in...I don't know, at least eight years? On occasion, I will load a whole bunch of episodes for a series on Netflix, but that's it. This is fine with me, as I save a lot of time and end up reading quite a bit more.
Whenever a cultural phenomenon hits, though, I try to do some cursory investigations. I didn't bother spending time on Honey Boo Boo or Jersey Shore, apart from perhaps a basic summary on Wikipedia, but Breaking Bad was another matter. Intelligensia were flocking to the show, and a bunch of my close friends were losing their minds over it.
I waited for the series to finish, and then I binged on it, as is my preference. I really hate waiting for sequels to things I like. (And yes, the Harry Potter years were agony, thanks so much.) Breaking Bad, frankly, had me dubious. Crime isn't my thing. I like a touch of noire, and I like action, but The Sopranos and that whole genre always left me cold. Sure, I'm fond of Sherlock Holmes stories in all incarnations, and I had a childhood aspiration towards forensic science, but I prefer a nice mediaeval poisoning or a treatise on ancient weapons to a contemporary crime drama. However, writer pals kept insisting it was well-written, well-acted, etc, etc.
Well, I just finished the series tonight, and I'm still processing what I spent the last few weeks watching. I should probably stick a spoilers warning here.
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
Right. Now that you've had your freak-out, we can continue. So: let's talk basics.
The acting was unquestionably top-notch, and the camera-work was quite good. The acting is, in fact, so perfect that I'm not going to talk about it. There's simply nothing to say about portrayals of characters that are so honest, you can't even see the actor bleeding through underneath .
As for the camera work, well, it was shaky when it needed to be shaky and steady when it needed to be steady. Shots seemed to be framed well, especially in the many desert scenes, and there was a lot of use of visual motifs in the shots. Use of the teddy eye as symbolism for Walter when he was still feeling moral qualms, the colour themes--there were a few times when one felt a bit hit over the head by it, such as the way the plane crash symbolized the breaking of Walter's world, but it was nice to see symbolism.
The other mechanics in the show were pretty good, too. No exploding cars, for instance. There were some factual issues and errors in the last season, but the understanding of addiction was certainly top-notch. The science of the show is something I can't comment on, because frankly, chemistry isn't my area of expertise, but it certainly seemed to be right.
I'm reminded of Game of Thrones (which I've read but not seen) in a lot of ways. Most people are familiar with the phrase, "In the Game of Thrones, you win or you die"; Martin repeats it as often as the infamous "Winter Is Coming". The moral structure here reminded me of GoT, but mostly, I found myself thinking of Shakespeare a lot. In Romeo and Juliet, and quite a few other tragedies, there's a real emphasis placed on the accidental casualties who fall as a result of the hero's failure or the villain's machinations. However, this is no case of incompetence or madness, as in Hamlet, or mere cumulative misunderstandings, as in Othello. Rather, I think of Macbeth; Breaking Bad makes us cheer for the villain.
There are casualties and people who don't get what they deserve--the children who die, for instance, are as innocent as the princes of Richard III, and as undeserving--but most of the people who die, particularly in the bloodbath that is the final episode, really deserve what they get. Tuco Salamanca, Gustavo Fring, Todd Alquist, and Lydia Quayle stand out as examples of people who all fall by the hand of poetic justice. Others, such as Mike Ermantrout and Hank Schrader, fell because of their line of duty; then, too, all of the deaths mentioned are nicely foreshadowed and suggested as the characters commit moral crimes along the way. It's noteable that Jesse, like Horatio, does survive; he also consistently made moral choices that avoided the harm of innocents when possible, and that he showed repentance for his crimes far more than any other character.
What does draw my admiration, though, was the use of the proper five-act structure for the seasons, and especially for Walter's character. The seasons themselves--particularly most of three, apart from a couple episodes, and the first half of the fourth--were sometimes lopsided, but they still moved well. I have to complain a bit about Holly being a human McGuffin in a lot of cases, and the way certain elements from the beginning were just dropped (hello, Skyler's literary aspirations) haphazardly, but over all, most elements were tied in well and consistently. It's nice to see a story that follows most of its logical implications through to the very ending of character arcs.
Vince Gilligan, the writer, apparently intended a 'Biblical feel', but the clear themes of consequences didn't require deep analysis to discover. The storytelling was clear enough to convey his message without ham-fistedness (well, most of the time), and that's certainly admirable. Indeed, there were even winks to this--doubting Saul, for example, who hits the road, but never actually goes to Damascus--or becomes a believer, for that matter. If there's a message in Breaking Bad, it's that you must make your own redemption, and if you're lucky, it will work out.
As much as people praise the character for being a badass and scold his wife for discouraging his criminal activities (!), I also have to praise Skyler, Walter's foil. She constantly strives for the morally correct decision and actually reacts in a realistic way, the way an overwhelmed partner probably would. I have more than a passing familiarity with stress reactions--both academic and personal--and it was all handled in a very impressive way. She and Jesse Pinkman both count as foils in some respects, but they're dynamic characters, changing in response to circumstances handed to them and unwilling to take Walt's orders without question, especially as time goes on.
The use of other characters as foils for each other--Tuco, Gustavo, and Lydia, for instance--also reflects some of that biblical stuff with a trine structure. Clearly, Gilligan wasn't just sleeping through the board meetings, the way some writers seem to (which is the only way I can excuse some of Steven Moffat and Russel Davies' worst Doctor Who episodes). Mirroring was also evident, such as in Walter Jr's character--he does right by his mother, rejects the father he once adored, and becomes very independent. There are lots of quiet demonstrations of the way the son does not follow the sins of the father, which bodes well for the life of the character after the show, but also plenty of examples of mirror characterization between Jesse and Walter Jr. Even the 'foils' get their own lives and stories.
Now, I did mention feelings, and I'm going to briefly mention that this series will wreck you. It didn't make me cry, to my surprise, but it was quite evocative and disturbing. For more of the how and why, tune in next time!
So, I should clarify something--I don't want TV. I really, really don't watch TV. I haven't had cable in...I don't know, at least eight years? On occasion, I will load a whole bunch of episodes for a series on Netflix, but that's it. This is fine with me, as I save a lot of time and end up reading quite a bit more.
Whenever a cultural phenomenon hits, though, I try to do some cursory investigations. I didn't bother spending time on Honey Boo Boo or Jersey Shore, apart from perhaps a basic summary on Wikipedia, but Breaking Bad was another matter. Intelligensia were flocking to the show, and a bunch of my close friends were losing their minds over it.
I waited for the series to finish, and then I binged on it, as is my preference. I really hate waiting for sequels to things I like. (And yes, the Harry Potter years were agony, thanks so much.) Breaking Bad, frankly, had me dubious. Crime isn't my thing. I like a touch of noire, and I like action, but The Sopranos and that whole genre always left me cold. Sure, I'm fond of Sherlock Holmes stories in all incarnations, and I had a childhood aspiration towards forensic science, but I prefer a nice mediaeval poisoning or a treatise on ancient weapons to a contemporary crime drama. However, writer pals kept insisting it was well-written, well-acted, etc, etc.
Well, I just finished the series tonight, and I'm still processing what I spent the last few weeks watching. I should probably stick a spoilers warning here.
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
Right. Now that you've had your freak-out, we can continue. So: let's talk basics.
Mechanics of the show
The acting was unquestionably top-notch, and the camera-work was quite good. The acting is, in fact, so perfect that I'm not going to talk about it. There's simply nothing to say about portrayals of characters that are so honest, you can't even see the actor bleeding through underneath .
As for the camera work, well, it was shaky when it needed to be shaky and steady when it needed to be steady. Shots seemed to be framed well, especially in the many desert scenes, and there was a lot of use of visual motifs in the shots. Use of the teddy eye as symbolism for Walter when he was still feeling moral qualms, the colour themes--there were a few times when one felt a bit hit over the head by it, such as the way the plane crash symbolized the breaking of Walter's world, but it was nice to see symbolism.
The other mechanics in the show were pretty good, too. No exploding cars, for instance. There were some factual issues and errors in the last season, but the understanding of addiction was certainly top-notch. The science of the show is something I can't comment on, because frankly, chemistry isn't my area of expertise, but it certainly seemed to be right.
 |
Source. Yeah, it's cheating, I know. |
Literary structure and layers
I'm reminded of Game of Thrones (which I've read but not seen) in a lot of ways. Most people are familiar with the phrase, "In the Game of Thrones, you win or you die"; Martin repeats it as often as the infamous "Winter Is Coming". The moral structure here reminded me of GoT, but mostly, I found myself thinking of Shakespeare a lot. In Romeo and Juliet, and quite a few other tragedies, there's a real emphasis placed on the accidental casualties who fall as a result of the hero's failure or the villain's machinations. However, this is no case of incompetence or madness, as in Hamlet, or mere cumulative misunderstandings, as in Othello. Rather, I think of Macbeth; Breaking Bad makes us cheer for the villain.
There are casualties and people who don't get what they deserve--the children who die, for instance, are as innocent as the princes of Richard III, and as undeserving--but most of the people who die, particularly in the bloodbath that is the final episode, really deserve what they get. Tuco Salamanca, Gustavo Fring, Todd Alquist, and Lydia Quayle stand out as examples of people who all fall by the hand of poetic justice. Others, such as Mike Ermantrout and Hank Schrader, fell because of their line of duty; then, too, all of the deaths mentioned are nicely foreshadowed and suggested as the characters commit moral crimes along the way. It's noteable that Jesse, like Horatio, does survive; he also consistently made moral choices that avoided the harm of innocents when possible, and that he showed repentance for his crimes far more than any other character.
What does draw my admiration, though, was the use of the proper five-act structure for the seasons, and especially for Walter's character. The seasons themselves--particularly most of three, apart from a couple episodes, and the first half of the fourth--were sometimes lopsided, but they still moved well. I have to complain a bit about Holly being a human McGuffin in a lot of cases, and the way certain elements from the beginning were just dropped (hello, Skyler's literary aspirations) haphazardly, but over all, most elements were tied in well and consistently. It's nice to see a story that follows most of its logical implications through to the very ending of character arcs.
Vince Gilligan, the writer, apparently intended a 'Biblical feel', but the clear themes of consequences didn't require deep analysis to discover. The storytelling was clear enough to convey his message without ham-fistedness (well, most of the time), and that's certainly admirable. Indeed, there were even winks to this--doubting Saul, for example, who hits the road, but never actually goes to Damascus--or becomes a believer, for that matter. If there's a message in Breaking Bad, it's that you must make your own redemption, and if you're lucky, it will work out.
A quick word on characters
As much as people praise the character for being a badass and scold his wife for discouraging his criminal activities (!), I also have to praise Skyler, Walter's foil. She constantly strives for the morally correct decision and actually reacts in a realistic way, the way an overwhelmed partner probably would. I have more than a passing familiarity with stress reactions--both academic and personal--and it was all handled in a very impressive way. She and Jesse Pinkman both count as foils in some respects, but they're dynamic characters, changing in response to circumstances handed to them and unwilling to take Walt's orders without question, especially as time goes on.
The use of other characters as foils for each other--Tuco, Gustavo, and Lydia, for instance--also reflects some of that biblical stuff with a trine structure. Clearly, Gilligan wasn't just sleeping through the board meetings, the way some writers seem to (which is the only way I can excuse some of Steven Moffat and Russel Davies' worst Doctor Who episodes). Mirroring was also evident, such as in Walter Jr's character--he does right by his mother, rejects the father he once adored, and becomes very independent. There are lots of quiet demonstrations of the way the son does not follow the sins of the father, which bodes well for the life of the character after the show, but also plenty of examples of mirror characterization between Jesse and Walter Jr. Even the 'foils' get their own lives and stories.
Now, I did mention feelings, and I'm going to briefly mention that this series will wreck you. It didn't make me cry, to my surprise, but it was quite evocative and disturbing. For more of the how and why, tune in next time!
*****
Thanks for dropping by the nest once again. Don't miss any of the phuquerie. Find Michelle on Twitter, Facebook, and on Tumblr. More interviews and witty commentaries are coming. Keep checking back to see those surprise posts, too. This is your darling SciFiMagpie, over and out!
Monday, 14 October 2013
I've Seen Enough Hentai To Know Where This Is Going. Missed It Review: Mandrake (2010)
Hello hello!
From time to time, I will post a quick review of movies and books I either a) miraculously missed, or b) just discovered, and c) definitely think you should not miss. Or, sometimes, d) think you need to miss as hard as possible, because it is e) embarassingly mediocre or f) soul-scarringly, chew-your-own-nuts-off-to-escape awful. Obviously, this means spoilers.
Tonight's shitastrophic film is Mandrake (2010).
All right. Well, I needed something to listen to while I edited a project, and what better than a craptacular movie? I will add the note that this means I was distracted while watching the film, so keep that in mind. That said, Mandrake is not exactly a terrifically rich film. I will grant Pandorum this much--it made the pretense of having layers (even though other bloggers disagreed, I still maintain that it was a fantastically stupid movie).
So, here's the plot--which you won't find on Wikipedia, because this film is that insignificant--some archaeologists go to a jungle in a fictional South-American country for...ph4t l00t, I guess--and there's a dagger they recover with a totally not plastic 30-carat ruby. Then the jungle comes to life and starts attacking them. No, I'm not skimming over the plot; that's really all there is to it.
The joy in this movie really comes from the effects and the atrocious acting. In the first scene--the mandatory 'some chick running through the woods' shot--we see an unconcerned actress stumbling around and even bum-scooting down a steep hill just before she gets offed in a jump cut. Shortly after, another victim from the camp site--which totally doesn't look like they just took the casting tents and pointed the cameras at them--we see a dude trip over and get pulled into the bushes. All it was missing was a funny horn-honk, and it would have been a classic pratfall from a cartoon. Add in Doctor Exposition, a blonde who is definitely a university researcher, and some disposible, interchangeable protags and baddies, and you have the perfect cast for this goofy 'jungle' jaunt. When I say 'jungle', I mean, 'probably filmed in Florida', of course. This is definitely not a rainforest.
The casting and writing are just what you'd expect. The female actresses, with no disrespect, look and act like they're trying to make a transition from the adult film industry; the baddies are bad, the good guys are blander than truck-stop diner rice pudding, and so on and so forth. Of course, if you're watching a film called 'Mandrake' (Mandrakes, by the way, don't grow in South America, as far as I know) with CGI vines that attack people and you expect Shakespearean writing, you will be in for a disappointment.
I do have to mention that there's a throwaway 'fuck the conquistadors' line, and then the movie goes into the standard somewhat racist paradigm where scary first-nations people abduct a bunch of whites. One of the characters actually yells, "you can't do this to me! I'm an American!" So, of course, a wag of the finger for the cheapness of that old trope. But, again, expecting intelligence from this movie is like expecting your dog to do calculus. It involves disparate abilities compared to the goal, and while it's cute, it's not very productive.
The biggest thing I noticed with this one is that the effects are truly something special. I'm no historian--though I will admit to a real fondness for the area--but the bloopers are obvious and blatant. Let's start with the conquistador, whose breastplate is rusted away and whose skull is perfectly white and intact. Perhaps we should touch on the fact that the movie couldn't be arsed to tell the difference between the indigenous tribespeople and the Aztec--we're shown an indigenous tribe and all the engravings, of course, are Aztec. Then there's the costume designs--I really laughed when I saw those. The indigenous people look like a Spirit Halloween store version of fairy barbarians. Of course, there was an Aztec map--even though Aztecs didn't use paper or cloth, and if it was from a Spanish conquistador, it would have been in Spanish, not just Aztec. I think one of the crowning moments was seeing a North American deer antler on the priest's staff.
It's been a while since I laughed this hard. Obviously, this movie wasn't supposed to be funny, but between characters' poorly-delivered lines, the beyond-terrible historical inaccuracies, it was just brilliant. I almost think they did this intentionally. Surely a movie this bad was never meant to be taken seriously. Right? Right? Also, there is plenty of room in the pacing for an in-living-room riff track, so this is perfect for a crappy movie night with friends. Hell, even alone, this moldy wonder is pretty entertaining.
If you don't like bad movies, you won't like this. Also, there were plenty of set-ups for tentacle porn, and not a single joke about it, which was actually quite disappointing. In fact, the movie studiously avoids laughs, in a way I can't help finding laudable--it's as though they knew their movie was laughable enough.
Normally, I would wag my finger at mildly sexualizing the death of female characters, but again, this movie is just such an underachiever that I can't bring myself to do it. So, again, if you're in the mood for something insightful and layered, this is not the movie for you.
8 out of 10 for sheer goofiness. I docked a mark or two out of propriety, but the writing, the cast, the monster, and the whole shebang are just too delectably silly to miss. Fire this one up on Netflix and watch it with a few friends. Drink every time it looks like someone's about to be vine-raped, and every time a character spews pointless exposition. If you don't die, make sure to report back.
From time to time, I will post a quick review of movies and books I either a) miraculously missed, or b) just discovered, and c) definitely think you should not miss. Or, sometimes, d) think you need to miss as hard as possible, because it is e) embarassingly mediocre or f) soul-scarringly, chew-your-own-nuts-off-to-escape awful. Obviously, this means spoilers.
Tonight's shitastrophic film is Mandrake (2010).
 |
| Source. For some reason, this insanely bad movie was quite hard to get photos for. |
Summary
All right. Well, I needed something to listen to while I edited a project, and what better than a craptacular movie? I will add the note that this means I was distracted while watching the film, so keep that in mind. That said, Mandrake is not exactly a terrifically rich film. I will grant Pandorum this much--it made the pretense of having layers (even though other bloggers disagreed, I still maintain that it was a fantastically stupid movie).
So, here's the plot--which you won't find on Wikipedia, because this film is that insignificant--some archaeologists go to a jungle in a fictional South-American country for...ph4t l00t, I guess--and there's a dagger they recover with a totally not plastic 30-carat ruby. Then the jungle comes to life and starts attacking them. No, I'm not skimming over the plot; that's really all there is to it.
The joy in this movie really comes from the effects and the atrocious acting. In the first scene--the mandatory 'some chick running through the woods' shot--we see an unconcerned actress stumbling around and even bum-scooting down a steep hill just before she gets offed in a jump cut. Shortly after, another victim from the camp site--which totally doesn't look like they just took the casting tents and pointed the cameras at them--we see a dude trip over and get pulled into the bushes. All it was missing was a funny horn-honk, and it would have been a classic pratfall from a cartoon. Add in Doctor Exposition, a blonde who is definitely a university researcher, and some disposible, interchangeable protags and baddies, and you have the perfect cast for this goofy 'jungle' jaunt. When I say 'jungle', I mean, 'probably filmed in Florida', of course. This is definitely not a rainforest.
The casting and writing are just what you'd expect. The female actresses, with no disrespect, look and act like they're trying to make a transition from the adult film industry; the baddies are bad, the good guys are blander than truck-stop diner rice pudding, and so on and so forth. Of course, if you're watching a film called 'Mandrake' (Mandrakes, by the way, don't grow in South America, as far as I know) with CGI vines that attack people and you expect Shakespearean writing, you will be in for a disappointment.
I do have to mention that there's a throwaway 'fuck the conquistadors' line, and then the movie goes into the standard somewhat racist paradigm where scary first-nations people abduct a bunch of whites. One of the characters actually yells, "you can't do this to me! I'm an American!" So, of course, a wag of the finger for the cheapness of that old trope. But, again, expecting intelligence from this movie is like expecting your dog to do calculus. It involves disparate abilities compared to the goal, and while it's cute, it's not very productive.
The biggest thing I noticed with this one is that the effects are truly something special. I'm no historian--though I will admit to a real fondness for the area--but the bloopers are obvious and blatant. Let's start with the conquistador, whose breastplate is rusted away and whose skull is perfectly white and intact. Perhaps we should touch on the fact that the movie couldn't be arsed to tell the difference between the indigenous tribespeople and the Aztec--we're shown an indigenous tribe and all the engravings, of course, are Aztec. Then there's the costume designs--I really laughed when I saw those. The indigenous people look like a Spirit Halloween store version of fairy barbarians. Of course, there was an Aztec map--even though Aztecs didn't use paper or cloth, and if it was from a Spanish conquistador, it would have been in Spanish, not just Aztec. I think one of the crowning moments was seeing a North American deer antler on the priest's staff.
 |
Source. Yeah., definitely a high production-value film |
Pros
It's been a while since I laughed this hard. Obviously, this movie wasn't supposed to be funny, but between characters' poorly-delivered lines, the beyond-terrible historical inaccuracies, it was just brilliant. I almost think they did this intentionally. Surely a movie this bad was never meant to be taken seriously. Right? Right? Also, there is plenty of room in the pacing for an in-living-room riff track, so this is perfect for a crappy movie night with friends. Hell, even alone, this moldy wonder is pretty entertaining.
Cons
If you don't like bad movies, you won't like this. Also, there were plenty of set-ups for tentacle porn, and not a single joke about it, which was actually quite disappointing. In fact, the movie studiously avoids laughs, in a way I can't help finding laudable--it's as though they knew their movie was laughable enough.
Normally, I would wag my finger at mildly sexualizing the death of female characters, but again, this movie is just such an underachiever that I can't bring myself to do it. So, again, if you're in the mood for something insightful and layered, this is not the movie for you.
Final Verdict
8 out of 10 for sheer goofiness. I docked a mark or two out of propriety, but the writing, the cast, the monster, and the whole shebang are just too delectably silly to miss. Fire this one up on Netflix and watch it with a few friends. Drink every time it looks like someone's about to be vine-raped, and every time a character spews pointless exposition. If you don't die, make sure to report back.
*****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)