Matty

A television series written and filmed with the same conscientiousness with which Walt cooks Blue Sky. The following selection from the SPOILER-packed observations that I have written over the course of all five seasons isn’t intended to be a comprehensive analysis, but a means of partially covering what makes up the extraordinary nature of Gilligan’s achievement by breaking down several constituent aspects of the series. ___ Throughout the series, the development of the narrative seems to be determined by Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty. Based on the anticipated direction of development (from victim of external events to manipulative monster), it’s impossible to guess when something will go south and who will undergo a change in personal character. Breaking Bad is not accommodating toward viewer expectations in that it rejects the usual narrative formula. It disconcerts us with its efforts to raise the plausibility of ongoing events, creating the impression that almost anything could happen. However, it does not discourage us from forming our own hypotheses. On the contrary, through the “forward looking” scenes in the prologue, it rather encourages us to actively insert what we see into the narrative as a whole. Suspense is created based not only on the viewer’s uncertainty with respect to what will happen, but also on the knowledge of what the character knows or doesn’t know. The series’ creators work with multiple narrative focal points and pit the characters conflicting interests against each other, so that the characters frequently have to face risks coming from different areas (immediate and extended family, institutions, the underworld). The transformation of our perception of the characters is tied to what we know of them, how much we respect them and how many moral transgressions we are willing to forgive them for. It is fascinating to watch the purposeful “dirtying” of the protagonists. In the final season, it will be hard for you to find a character who is without guilt. The increasing risks taken force the characters to think farther ahead, thus making them better players. The self-stylisation and pretence don’t do any good for Jesse in particular, who is perhaps the weakest personality, but he is also the one to whom the most powerful cathartic effect is bound in the final episode. ___ The real antagonist of most of the characters is their own potential, which they either fail to fulfil (through their own fault and that of the system, which repeatedly discourages them) or they fulfil it at a disproportionate cost. The protagonists are also united by their ambiguity. Each of them can step out of his role, whether he accepted it voluntarily or under duress. Because nothing is fixed and we are forced to assess the given choices of a given character in the context of his previous actions, it is possible to also doubt Walt’s admission in the final episode that taking care of his family was only a pretext for choosing a life of crime (on which he embarked for his own selfish reasons, not to provide for his wife and son). Was his motivation from the beginning really anything other than power and money? We are aided in the reassessment of our opinions on the characters by the use of parallels (Hank as a substitute father for Walt Junior, Walt as a substitute father for Jesse), which lead us to see similar situations in different contexts and point to some key themes of the series. ___ Through his career as a drug kingpin, Walt vents the aggression that he has built up from numerous sources. He failed as the breadwinner of his family, nor did he fulfil expectations as a father figure (his son gets advice on how to be a man from Hank). Through his other life, he also compensates for the breakdown of his own body. He makes money outside of the system also because he was excluded from it due to his illness. He is rejected by society because, as a person with cancer, he signifies death (the “other”). Cooking meth makes it possible for him to overcome the substitute father and husband figures and to put his exceptional intellect to use at least outside of the official structure. He holds on to his faith in the traditional, or rather obligatory model of the family for a long time. Only in the series finale, no longer bound by anything, all-powerful and capable of anything, he can give full expression to his potential and fully transform into the person he was perhaps destined to become from the beginning. ____ The extraordinary thematic scope of the seasons makes Breaking Bad rewarding material for a sociological study on the anxieties of contemporary America (drugs, money, terminal disease, an ineffective social-security system). Those who want to make it cannot respect the law and must endlessly build up the façade of an upstanding citizen through hundreds of small lies. Many times, the series relativises the distinction between “big” lies with broad reach and small family lies. Hypocrisy is the essence of both. Instead of learning greater openness, the protagonists become ever more adept at constructing alternate worlds and coming up with reasonable stories (Walt as a gambler). As everyone gradually finds out, however, the real drama plays out behind these false fronts. It is fascinating to watch how the screenwriters lead the characters into a multi-level web of lies and how they deal with their various degrees of knowledge about the existence of particular worlds and their supposed inhabitants, family, the underworld; these worlds are at first more distinctly different also artistically, but all of them gradually “darken” into the same colour palette). ___ Breaking Bad is also extremely satisfying in terms of its style, which changes not only in the course of single episodes, but also in individual scenes (through recontextualization and/or the revealing of new information, we are prompted to see a given scene from a different perspective). With the graphic continuity of shots, action played out on multiple planes and creation of meanings through camera positioning and movement, the series’ creators succeeded in doing much more than many Hollywood productions with a hundred times the budget. I could endlessly watch the Scorsese-inspired edited collages, while the emblematic space of New Mexico hasn’t been used for such a thrilling dusting off of classic western motifs (the train robbery) for years, and in terms of directing, the final episode can boldly compete with any of Hitchcock’s better thrillers. There is much that could still be written, but the tone would remain just as praiseful. Breaking Bad contains so much that is positive that I consider it to be petty to mention its few minor flaws. It doesn’t often happen that a series allows you to be practically uncritical. And I give thanks for that! 100%

This bitterly comedic series about four New Yorkers in their twenties who are trying to find work, maintain their relationships and preserve their sanity is much more than an earthier version of Sex and the City. The generational statement mines the aesthetics of a number of American indie films (not only Dunham’s) and elaborates on their themes. Girls shows us that emphasis placed on the authenticity of the statement (as in Louie) doesn’t necessarily have to be bought through resignation to visual elegance (also as in Louie). ___ The series captures the viewer’s attention from the first episodes with its simple yet coherent style with thoughtfully composed shots, cautious use of details and close-ups of the characters’ faces (the narrative is predominantly subjective, usually connected to the point of view of one of the protagonists, whose world we practically never leave), documentary-like use of real locations in (not only) New York and subversive use of genre conventions. ___ The series also goes against convention in its representation of women. Rather than walking stereotypes defined by their role as either a girlfriend, mother or wife, they embody what women still do not receive in the entertainment industry – complexity and diversity. They sometimes make foolish decisions, behave selfishly and suffer from various neuroses. At the same time, they are ironic, impudent, intellectually curious and very self-confident. ___ Due to the creator’s unwillingness to make dramaturgical concessions because of her characters, the wager on genuineness is manifested not only in the malleability of the characters and the convincing depiction of the setting, but also in the series’ formalistic looseness. The episodes, which usually exploits a single setting or motif, do not work as concise sketches with a gradual build-up and apt point. Instead, they often end up in the void. Instead of abrupt twists, they work with hints and subtle shifts in the protagonists’ character development. ___ With each season, it also becomes increasingly clear that Dunham is maturing as a director and adapting her signature style more to the norms of contemporary television production. But even that smoothing of the rough edges hasn’t turned Girls into a series that would sympathise with its narcissistic characters and defend their shortsighted lack of criticalness. On the contrary, the brutal honesty of the series began to serve a more obvious purpose. It is no longer so often about honesty for the sake of honesty, but honesty serving the story and the development of the characters. ___ I realise that Girls is a distinctively generational matter and that, in a few years, I will be dealing with something other than friendship and enmity, trust and self-confidence, career and self-education, but I currently find the series to be the most useful simulator for life situations that one may encounter after university. With its piercing observations about relationships, it is both uncomfortably true and unbelievably funny. For both girls and boys. For those who are dating someone and for those who want to date someone. After life itself, Girls is currently the second best school of life for me. 90%

“Man fucks woman. Man subject. Woman object. That’s fine for you. Woman fucks man. Woman subject. Man object. That’s not so comfortable for you, is it?” The British sister of Saga Norén finds herself in a world of men who love women...but in a very unhealthy way. Complex female characters are still not something so common in films and series, especially crime films and series, that I would be enthusiastic about The Fall only because of Stella Gibson. It is fascinating how Gillian Anderson puts such great effort into every nonverbal message while embodying the role of an exceptionally intelligent professional with an analytical mind and strong moral principles. Thanks to the multiple meanings of her seemingly apathetic glances, we are not indifferent to Stella, despite her coldness. At the same time, she never shows so much empathy that she would completely negate the parallels between herself and Paul, on which the dynamics of the narrative are based. Both of them find satisfaction in work done flawlessly, both are almost fanatically devoted to their respective missions, both are predators (though the ending of the first season indicates that one of them could become prey next time). We are led to search for similarities between the elusive serial killer and the good detective not only by the dialogue about dual personalities, but also by a parallel montage of their respective actions, carried out with the same precision and possibly with similar psychological motives (coming to terms with the past). The creation of thematic, motivic and compositional connections between Stella and Paul’s storylines, with the essential question “WHEN will they finally face each other?” in the background, contributes to the chilling feeling that the killer is at least implicitly present at all times. Instead of outright horror scenes (as in Luther), this unrelenting malevolent sense of foreboding is the main safeguard preventing viewers from losing interest. In fact, the characters certainly spend more time analysing their mistakes than successfully resolving situations, and the joy of most shifts in the investigation is further tempered by cutaways to another crime committed. One step forward, two steps back. 90%

“You had the female response, which was to go nuclear and try to destroy our family. I’m having the masculine response, which is to bury the pain and jerk off in the basement rather than touch you.” After three seasons, Catastrophe is still one of the funniest, most biting and truthful series about modern relationships, as it takes both the male and female perspectives equally into account. It has superbly written characters, situations taken from real life, and the incredible cadence of one-liners that you will want to write down. If you are interested in what a serious relationship and family life entail, watch Catastrophe so that you know what you are getting into.