I finally watched Breaking Bad. Reason for this lateness is the backlog of unseen movies that has now reached such ridiculous proportions that I am always few years behind everyone. So I watch them when I can, when I want, there’s no pressure. I am also quite bad at doing movie marathons, especially if the movies are good. One good movie leaves quite an impact on me and I need time to get out of it and watch another.
It’s also a kind of relief to watch something as intense as Breaking Bad when the rest of the world is doing something else. If you watch it in real time, you get caught up in the hype of regular reviews and reactions and in turn, get affected by it. It is impossible to read a good review and not get at least a little bit biased by it. If you do it before you watch the movie, you already have some preconceived notion about it. That’s why when I write a review, I try to give away as little of the plot as possible. It’s much better if the viewer experiences it first hand.
It’s difficult to write something unique about Breaking Bad. There are some very obvious talking points. Bryan Cranston, for instance. The question is : what can you say about an actor – other than talking in superlatives – who plays President Lyndon Johnson and professor-turned-gangster Walter White with such intensity? His range is simply phenomenal.
The other much talked about aspect of the series is its cinematography. I have a very simple rule for judging the cinematography of a movie or series. Freeze any random frame and ask the question : does it make a good photograph on its own, regardless of the plot or the situation? If you try this with Breaking Bad, the number of good photographs that you can find is astonishingly high. But there’s a problem. The plot is so gripping that you notice the cinematography only in passing, like you would in a fast moving train. This can also happen with a movie and that’s why you watch your favourite movie many, many times, uncovering a new facet each time. Unfortunately, you cannot do this with Breaking Bad. The total running time for all seasons of Breaking Bad is 2 days and 14 hours! Who has that kind of time to go for a rerun?
Here’s an idea for anyone who can do it. Select all beautiful frames in Breaking Bad and publish them as still photographs. It will make a great photography book.
I was exhausted after watching the series. As the effect began to fade, one thing remained – the characters. What made these characters memorable? And I realized that I had never really paid attention to the backstory of the characters till now. One reason for this is that in movies there is not much time to go into the backstory of the character unless it’s essential to the plot. Then you go into a flashback. At other times, movies try to fit in the backstory as effectively as possible – through one scene, a remark, a conversation. It really tests the creativity of the filmmakers to try and fit as many backstory details as possible. Of course, this is only possible for the lead characters. In 2+ hours, you cannot afford to spend any time on the back stories of the supporting characters. And this is exactly where a television series like Breaking Bad becomes a game changer. When you have 2 days to tell your story, you can add all the nuances that you want.
Here’s what’s interesting about Breaking Bad. Let’s say you want to make a sequel or a prequel. Which characters would you choose? The obvious choice would be the two protagonists, Walter White and Jesse Pinkman. And yet, when the creator Vance Gilligan made Better Call Saul, which shows the sequence of events that led to the situation of Breaking Bad, he choose two supporting characters. One is a henchman, Mike Ehrmantraut (Jonathan Banks) and the other is a lawyer, Jimmy McGill (Bob Odenkirk). When you watch Breaking Bad, you don’t pay much attention to these people. Sure, they are interesting but the main drama is so intense that they fade into the background, just like the cinematography through the passing train.
But when you start watching Better Call Saul, these supporting characters come to life. Intricately connected with these are other characters like Nacho Verga (Michael Mando) and Gus Fring (Giancarlo Esposito). Nacho is another henchman while Gus is the Don. It’s remarkable how these supporting characters come to the foreground while the protagonists of Breaking Bad fade into background and you never feel the change. It’s as if Vance has a magic lens that he can use to focus on any character, no matter how small and bring out all the nuances within.
What makes the Breaking Bad characters so unique is their finely etched personalities. A part of it has to do with casting which could not have been more perfect. When you see Jonathan Banks as Mike, he does not have to say a single word to make you believe that he is this ruthless henchman who could kill anyone at a moment’s notice. Ditto with Bob Odenkirk who plays Jimmy McGill, a lawyer with no morals and flexible principles.
While Breaking Bad was a fast moving train, Better Call Saul is a slow cruise. There are some action filled episodes but nothing as nerve wrecking as Breaking Bad. And this turns out to be a boon in disguise. First, you can really appreciate the cinematography here and probably the creators feel the same. First few episodes of Better Call Saul start in black and white showing everyday tasks in a cafe – someone making coffee or pastries. But these mundane tasks are shot with such exquisite care and beauty that it leaves you spellbound.
The idea of having a large number of finely etched characters is seen quite often in epic novels like War and Peace or A Suitable Boy. Movies cannot depict this complexity well due to time constraints. Television series overcomes this problem.
Breaking Bad is an epic novel on screen.
