Breaking Bad (and Getting Worse)

For those of us who masochistically enjoy following the ongoing train wreck that is the lives of Walter White and Jesse Pinkman, season 4 has been particularly compelling. Both characters are developing along the lines established in the first three seasons. Which is to say, they are both becoming very, very bad. Yet, despite the show's moral compass heading decidedly south, both men's decisions are shown as a necessary response to their environment. Yes, Jesse murdered someone at the end of season 3. It's hard to argue, however, that, at that moment, he had any choice. Walt was about to be killed and Jesse was forced to decide where his loyalty lies. For Jesse, Walt still represents, in spite of far he has fallen, a link to a world of middle-class normalcy, a way back up the social ladder towards respectability. He is also the only father figure Jesse has.

Both men are faced with choices about whether to maintain their dangerous course into criminality, or to jump ship and confess to the police. Before the murder, Jesse begs Walter to give up cooking meth and go to the police for protection. It seems an admission of the fact that neither of these guys is really cut out to be a criminal. Walter's ego and Jesse's naivete have pushed them this far, but they are both out of their element. Walter's stone face during this scene says it all. He won't quit, even though he has millions of dollars, his life and his family are in danger, and he is being forced into a life of violent crime. He can't quit, because of his ego, his pride, his machismo -- basically because Walter White has to win, has to be the alpha dog.

In terms of the other characters, the other desperate men and women in this world, we come to understand them a little better too. Even Gustavo, who has been the most opaque character thus far, gets his own episode. Unlike the earlier drug pushers of the cartel, Gus receives a back story. This episode helps to present him as a human being, with painful reasons for what he does. Yes, he is very dangerous, and will do practically anything to succeed, but he has feelings and his own code that he lives by -- just as Walter and Jesse do.

As we head towards the climax of the series, I feel more and more that Walter will get his much deserved comeuppance, yet I still can't help feeling sorry for the guy. He did start cooking drugs in order to set his family up for life. He did this when under the death sentence of lung cancer. In one touching (yet dark) scene, a fellow cancer patient comes to Walter for sympathy. He talks all the self-help wisdom of "accept your fate, let go, don't try to control your destiny." Walter's response, however hubristic, has a certain power. Basically, he says, "Fuck the universe. Until I am told it's over, I'm in charge." It's easier to understand his fatalistic outlook when one keeps in mind his illness and the financial struggles that he has been through.

The writers of Breaking Bad are careful to show us how these character became so desperate in the first place, just how they were driven to such violent extremes. And that is why it's the best show on television.

*************************************************************************************

[Spoiler Alert]

Season 4 Finale

The perverted sense of humor of Vince Gilligan and his crew are once again at play in the season finale in the form of the title "Face Off." Gus finally gets his, in spite of his sociopathic brilliance. Yes, it could have been Walt and/or Jesse getting their comeuppance, but it seems that Walt was a few steps ahead of the drug kingpin himself. It's a flawless ending to a brilliant season, and sets us up perfectly for the final season, as it will surely pit Walt versus his young prodige.

Gus's Achilles heal is revealed quickly at the beginning of the episode, and I can't believe I hadn't thought of it before. His hatred for the elderly Salamanca is the only thing that causes him to go outside of his safety zone. His trip to the old capo's nursing home puts him at the mercy of Walter, and, this time, our hero doesn't screw it up. The triple murder is a bit of criminal master-mindedness that ties up the more than one loose end for Walt. The man who threatened his family is dead, as is the last remaining member of the Mexican drug cartel.

We even get a shot of Walter gloating as he looks at Gustavo's abandoned car, with a close up of its Pollos Hermanos air freshener. That and the final scene, as Walter utters to Skylar, that he has "won" prove that his ego is intact after all of the lies and murders, the threats to his children, and general horribleness of the last four seasons. The major conflicts remain the same: Walt versus Skylar and her sense of (need for) middle-class respectability, and, of course, Walter versus Jesse, his only true partner and friend, who will have to decide if he really needs Walter.

Walt has played the role of Jesse's figurative father throughout the series, teaching him sometimes, even saving his life, but, on the other hand, limiting and denigrating him. Will Jesse find the strength to strike out on his own now that Gus is out of the picture? The very important clue to this upcoming conflict is the morning glory plant. We end on a close up of that plant, sitting square in Walter's backyard. Did he poison Jesse's figurative son just to save his own hide? Or did Gus really need to go? The wild card here is the only other father figure left for Jesse: Mike. Will Mike let Gus's death go without retaliation? It seems that he would, but, still, I can't see him working for Walter. The tangled web that has been woven throughout the show seems certain to catch its major players.

30 Minutes or Less

One thing I thought was original and fun about this buddy flic (or that dreaded word, "bromance") was that we get to explore two different pairs of buddies. The good guys have a relationship that goes back to childhood, but so, it appears, do the bad guys. And, in fact, the relationship between Dwayne and Travis (the villains of this silly but fun story) actually grows through the course of the film. So now we have not only interesting bad guys who are actual human beings but also get to have a friend that's more than a sidekick to, you know, kick around. Travis, the less confidant but ultimately more sane of the two, actually develops enough to stick up for himself and to stop Dwayne from doing something really bad.

What was fun about watching Nick (Jesse Eisenberg) and Chet (Aziz Ansari) together was their strong chemistry as friends. You can believe that these guys actually care about each other. You can also understand why Chet would be fed up with the listless Nick (a much darker, more depressive character than the sunny one played by Eisenberg in Zombieland).

Anyway, the two pairs of buddies get caught up in bad plans and much posturing and all hell breaks loose, only to be very neatly wrapped up with an acute moral sense. The whole tone of the movie captures the vulnerability and testosterone of male adolescence very well, even though the characters are older than that. Like the likable losers of Step-Brothers these four guys have somehow managed to squeak through their thirties without much being demanded of them. However, when the rubber meets the road, they are loyal to their friends. Men around the world who have much more complicated lives will breath a sigh of relief.

Osama is Dead

Osama is dead. But I can't get over the feeling that he won.

The world is a darker place than it was 10 years ago. We have less privacy and less dignity as human beings, even in America, yet as a culture our anxiety has worsened. I'm not a psychologist or a statistician but does anyone doubt it?

We seem closer than ever to an Orwellian future -- a future that doesn't seem all that "futuristic" anymore. Movies and books about near apocalypse states of being (World War Z, Children of Men spring to mind), much of their satiric bite comes from the fact that they refer to stuff as it actually is, right now.

Like the amber waves of our prairies, I watch as waves of fascism rise and fall around the world. In our media, in our systems of authority, in our religion, in our government, in our own bodies.

As perverted as it is, Osama sacrificed his life for what he believed in. This does not make him a hero, because he was evil. However, his does make his narrative attractive to many of dispossesed of the world, Muslim or not.

Theodor Adorno wrote in one of his essays, "The [current] hero no longer makes any sacrifices but now enjoys success. He does not come of age and assume freedom through his deeds for his career is simply the revelation of his conformity." Some of these "heroes," according to Adorno, are the banker and the career politician, "terms of abuse, even in the United States." They are hated for their arrogant assumption of moral and financial superiority. We, as Americans, are hated for those things now. The name "American" has been tainted and is considered inherently oppressive now. Reclaiming the concept of the "good American" will be an uphill battle and we cannot wage it while occupying other nations without legality or common sense. What the world thinks of us is important, even what poor and weak nations think of us is important, because, at the very least, it will impact the security of our children and grandchildren.

The Good America was built on the values of inclusion and tolerance, and, most importantly, respect for the individual and his and her right to make a life for themselves without having the system stacked against them. This is what capitalism and democracy are meant to achieve for humanity; otherwise, why bother?

Our economic system in this country has become predatory. It is fair to say that it is no longer democratic, because it favors a tiny financial elite. This is the "Judas Economy" (one that favors capital over labor) discussed by William Wolman and Anne Colamosca. It's clear to many of us that this has negative effects throughout the globe, and this is the true source of the resenting of Americans by so many. That and the many illegal and ill-considered wars since World War II.

Last year, many American banks saw an increase in profits, major increases, as it happens. JP Morgan/Chase Bank saw an increase of 40 Billion dollars. Its CEO (his name is Jamie Demon, I mean Dimon, and he wants to punch you in the face) pocketed nearly one percent of that, the rest shared in the typical upside down pyramid style of Corporate America. I think its safe to say that janitors and computer technicians and administrative personnel are not making more than they were a year ago, or even five years ago. Even such well-known beneficiaries of American corporate charity as Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs almost doubled his pay to $18.6m for 2010 "in spite of a slump in profits."

At some point we will have to admit that stealing from the working people of America in order to maintain the current system is as flawed as supporting dictators in other countries to maintain the global status quo. It was this sort of thinking that got us involved with people like Osama bin Laden in the first place (back during the cold war, when he was our friend).

And we will have to question our own economic and foreign policy. How can we promote good in the world? What is is to be a good American? It is not blithely assuming power that was not earned, or making the shareholders happy, or increasing profit margins at the expense of human margins. True heroism involves sacrificing one's own comfort in order to accomplish what is right and good for one's family and the world beyond it. Smart Americans know this. Americans like the best of the grunts in Afghanistan right now, the kind of people who do their job and try to do as little harm as possible. Interestingly, these Americans tend to be against the war when they return, if not before. These people put their lives on the line for very little pay (enlisted men start out at less then $20,000 per year). Meanwhile, at home, their families are stuggling to pay both the heat bill and the car payment this month while navigating the obscure rules of their HMO -- in other words, dealing with the same crap as the rest of us, but with the possible death of their spouse looming over their head.

Tonight, I will raise my glass not to America and her past glories, or the death of one evil man, but to these true heroes.

True Grit

Somebody's gonna win an Oscar, people! Maybe the young actress who plays Mattie Ross, maybe the Coen Bros. themselves. Jeff Bridges is not allowed, because he won last year, but he may get a nomination for his performance -- one I enjoyed a heck of a lot. I found the movie in general to be a beautifully produced, well-acted take on the classic story.

I must admit I've never seen the 1974 version. Strange, but somehow it's just one of those movies that slipped under my radar. However, this made for a real treat when I went to see the new Coen Bros. version, as I was only familiar with the story in the barebones sense.

I thought the Coen Bros. managed to capture a world and its language with exceptional brilliance. The story is a simple one but compelling. A daughter's revenge sets in motion a set of events that pit good versus evil, and each of the characters must choose which side of that moral divide they want to be on. While avoiding some of the darker elements that might have been addressed when a girl of 14 wanders into the wilderness with the drunkard Rooster Cogburn and the strange Mr. LeBoeuf (a self-effacing and effective Matt Damon), I found it enjoyable to see how basic human decency, however flawed, can slometimes prevail over evil.

TRON:LEGACY and the Good Father

There are two fathers in Tron: Legacy: the Zen and kindly father as played by an appropriately aged Jeff Bridges and the scarily young and aggressive one played by a digitally altered version of the same actor.

The good father is concerned for the young James Flynn, and can see the ways in which he has failed as a father to prepare him for their predicament. Then there is the over-confident and competitive Clu. A digital Narcissus, born of the elder Flynn’s need for a partner and, perhaps, someone as smart as himself to help him set up the “perfect system”, one which will help to revolutionize an ailing humanity (certainly no argument there). However, Clu turns out to be too good at creating perfection; he cannot understand the value of the new creatures which spawn in the Tron-verse, the Iso Algorithms, or Isos. Their presence upsets Clu, who organizes a genocide against the innocent creatures. Whether or not this is successful is an important part of the plot of the new Tron movie.

The interplay between the two fathers, and the challenges that James faces, along with his sprightly female friend Quorra, make for an interesting movie. The best part for me, however, was, toward the end, when Kevin Flynn realizes that he is both the wise Flynn and the ambitious Clu, and must somehow manage to combine the two sides of his personality without destroying his son in the process.

The Revenge of the Big Face

Review of Inglourious Basterds


Tarantino has made a big film about cinema and World War II and the anger of the oppressed. And the revenge of not only the oppressed but also of every young American man who has watched thousands of movies, relished in thousands of acts of murderous revenge, and placed himself on the screen during each one of them. The kind of person who has essentially lived through cinema a thousand lives he would otherwise have had no chance to live.

To say it is ambitious is to miss the point. While it is ambitious, and certainly takes liberties with history that we are not used to seeing in a WWII movie, its steadiness of tone and commitment to the values of cinema make it an important movie. By that I mean it should be watched, more than once, and mulled over and talked about. The fact that it brings together a combination of elements that is still odd and new enough to seem unorthodox and perhaps unseemly only proves that Tarantino is a true artist, in that he will not abide by the procedural boundaries of movies, whether art house or Hollywood. He does not make movies for a specific audience or for critics. He makes movies for those who love them. Chief among them, himself.

But what is he trying to say with this history-twisting movie about revenge? This fuck you letter to reality from the movies? Is he saying this is how things should be? Should Americans go around the world setting wrongs right, giving no attention to the rules? Or is "Inglourious Basterds" only meant to be a good night at the movies?

Tarantino's pacing grabs our interest. His trademark long scenes of dialogue with slowly building tension are punctuated by intense moments of violence. Violence that is ugly and clumsy and over quickly, like real violence. Much of the violence in IB goes by so fast, we barely have a chance to register what has just happened and find our minds trying to piece together the event while watching the next scene.

However, the heart of the film lies in the link between Baine's Apache heritage and the Verboten Jewishness of his "basterds." This is the best part of the American love of freedom and the underdog. Then, there is the dark side. The film has pathos but no real moral sense. The somewhat simplistic characterizations made me uncomfortable at times and had me wishing for a bit more thoughtfulness on Mr. Tarantino's part when dealing with such powerful themes.

Ah well, who knows? Maybe if Hollywood had been in charge of WWII, this is how it would have went down.

Academic Plan

Through the work done this semester, I have gotten a better idea of what I want to do. My literature review about the dialogue between post-modernism and Zen Buddhism helped me to think about the issue of language and its limits. My interest seems to be in understanding what is on the outside (or inside) of language. What cannot be expressed in language. And the kind of faith we need to be effective thinkers and speakers. Not faith in a traditional religious sense, but in an everyday sense. My feeling is that we all use this kind of faith to live our lives everyday. It takes faith to communicate something successfully, to make that leap in thinking that allows one to believe one human being could truly understand another.

I think this applies to the current situation in our culture, where people often have a hard time communicating. In the mainstream media, dialogue can often be stifling, as it sometimes works not to open new possibilities but to polarize the disparate camps of thought. To a lesser degree, Academia seems caught up in this too. I have found Derrida and post-modernism to be an interesting way to clarify our understanding of this problem. To work towards strengthening our perception and asking better questions, to open up new ways of understanding problems, whether they be intellectual or otherwise, seems to me to be very important work right now.

I think this work applies to all languages and media. The difficulty people have in adapting to new media seems to me to be a metaphor for the difficulty found in understanding and opening to the Other. My interest in this is not, I hope, abstract, but rather continues my interest in the language of symbols and in cultural metaphors as a whole. Where this will lead me is still somewhat uncertain.

Certainly, there is a lot going on in even the most unsophisticated of movies and video games that is worth looking at closely. A look at the ontology of video games would be an interesting project, given the medium’s use of first and third person perspectives and its use of non-linear and player-directed narratives.

But what about money? I have a job right now, but it is not very satisfying. I get to use a limited set of skills in print and Web editing, but it certainly is not enough to satisfy my creative side. Will I work in production someday? Quite possibly. Perhaps on some PBS show, a non-fiction show with a small budget. And then we’ll lose funding and I will attempt to sell my skills wherever I can. Ah well…

Plans for the Immediate Future

I plan to broaden my skills. I want to learn to design things, whether on the Web or elsewhere. I would like to continue my writing and perhaps work on a screenplay. Will I be able to synthesize my interest in semiotics, movies, and video games? It will be a challenge, but I look forward to it.

I enjoy writing and telling stories (mainly to my kids) and I will take a course in screenwriting at some point in this program. My plan is to write a thesis exploring some of the themes I have written about this semester. I will continue to take six credits per semester, as I will still be working full time and busy as a father of two children. I plan on taking “Media Practices: Design,” “Cinematography: Art and Technique,” and a video editing course. Next semester, I will be taking “Cinema Theory and Analysis,” along with “Media Practices: Concepts.”

As I think my visual abilities have gone somewhat untapped in my life; it will be exciting to see if I can tap those now, whether in screenwriting or some other visually rich field. I am most excited to get a chance to do my own design and video work in the “Concepts” class. I would like to make some short video pieces dealing with some of the themes I mentioned earlier. I enjoy some of the more experimental videos on YouTube, especially those that mix the spoken word with interesting visuals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xmqz38QtSU

I also find short animations very inspiring, like this one from two of the animators from “South Park.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERbvKrH-GC4&feature=related


I will take design and short film and video classes to augment my understanding of this type of work.

Right now, for my “Ideas” class, I am working on a paper concerning Heidegger and McLuhan’s views on technology. I find this topic to be extremely interesting. Heidegger has this concept of technology as “revealing.” But what is being revealed? This type of question seems to be worth asking, as we are in a bind with technology in western society. To think about media in its social, political, and spiritual implications makes a lot of sense to me. How can we improve our use of it in this culture? Why is McLuhan’s “global village” the site of so much intolerance and bloodshed?


I have a sense that my emphasis on signs and language could be an attempt to understand why it is that members of the same species are so intent upon destroying each other. Why it is we cannot understand each other, the Other, on so many levels. Despite our technological and scientific “progress,” we as a culture are far more violent, cruel, and perverse than any primitive culture could imagine. An inner journey is needed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SnfxItXe7s


While at times it seems as if combining the theoretical and the practical in my work will be difficult, the challenge is worthwhile. And I think I am in the right place – as combining theory and practice is the aim of this program.