thescarletpronster said:
The problem I had was not that I expected Breaking Bad to be similar in tone to The Wire, but that I expected it, because of the immense amount of hype (most of it, it has to be said, by word of mouth) that preceded my viewing of it. I expected it not to be realist, but to be superior to other examples of its type, rather than being (as it is) just another run-of-the-mill, albeit glossy and high budget, over-the-top sensationalist drama.
I promised I'd respond and sorry it's taken so long!
In many ways I'd agree with your choice of adjectives. Unlike yourself (if I read your post correctly), I celebrate these characteristics, whereas you use these terms pejoratively in way that makes a clear high-brow/low-brow cultural distinction.
In this sense, The Wire is cast as a show for discerning viewers (a televisual novel, if you will), while Breaking Bad is regarded as an expression of mass or low-brow culture.
I know you're not making quite so clear a distinction, and we can point to examples from each show that muddle such classification, but I'd still contend that audiences make value judgements on such terms.
I guess I'm saying I'm comfortable with the low-brow or middle-brow, which doesn't mean you have to agree, or that you'd be right or wrong to do so.
thescarletpronster said:
The one comparison I made in my comment was with The Sopranos, which was a more similar type of drama and therefore a more apt comparison. They were broadly similar in style, being what you call 'classical illusory realism', but, I contend, very different in the way they handled major events, both inner (emotional turmoil or moral dilemmas) and outer (violence, murder etc). I gave some examples of this; you may well disagree with my analysis and my opinions.
In The Sopranos, plot served in the main to service character; in Breaking Bad, it felt the other way around.
I should have been clearer when defining "classical illusory realism," since the commonly accepted definition relates directly to the point you make.
The term has its origins in studies of studio era Hollywood and what's usually regarded as a Fordist (production-line) approach to filmmaking. Here, narrative is king, and other concerns are secondary. Studio era Hollywood was in the business of telling stories, and these stories needed to be as easily communicated as possible. This was Hollywood's heyday, when audience numbers peaked and the "big five" studios controlled both the means of production (filmmaking) and the mode of exhibition.
The "classical Hollywood style" (or "classical illusory realism") was therefore about servicing narrative. Everything was organised to drive the story and communicate narrative events in the clearest way possible, from every aspect of physical and vocal performance, to sound cues, scores, leimotifs and bridges, to lighting, set design, and so on...
I think this definition of "classical illusory realism" fits your appraisal of Breaking Bad quite precisely; though I'd argue that Gilligan et al. made every effort to ensure character psychology felt consistent and plausible over the five season arc.
Outside of the above observations, I happen to love classical era Hollywood filmmaking and enjoy a well told story on its own terms. This perhaps means I'm more amenable to the approach taken with Breaking Bad. Again, there's no judgement in this observation, and I fully respect your right to take a different view.
the scarletpronster said:
I don't know whether that clarification will alter your analysis of my comments.
If anything, I should have been clearer in defining the terms of my argument. Hopefully that all now makes a little more sense.
thescarletpronster said:
I do also have criticisms of The Wire, by the way, but they are of the more superficial rather than fundamental aspects. For one thing one of the lead characters, Jimmy McNulty – that archetypal crime-fiction cliché, the intuitive detective genius who refused to play by the rules and was therefore a thorn in the side of his bosses while being also a disaster in his personal/family life – detracted from the series (1 and 5) in which he played a major part. He's much better in series 2, 3 and 4 (the best of The Wire overall) when he is no longer a homicide detective and pulls himself together as a person. The 'serial killer' narrative in series 5 didn't fit The Wire's realist approach at all, and was a major minus point in that final series, although it did serve to make some useful narrative and social points. I also don't find Dominic West particularly convincing in that role (or, indeed, in any role I've seen him in). But these are nowhere near as fundamental of my criticism of the entire approach of the creators of Breaking Bad to drama and entertainment.
I agree entirely that the McNulty character was a cliche.
Simon et al. took far greater care with the street characters, who were composites or derivatives of actual dealers and kingpins (or, as with Felicia "Snoop" Pearson, in many ways playing themselves).
I challenge anyone who hasn't seen The Wire to watch the season five episode, where Jimmy gurns about, supping whiskey from a hip-flask, smashing plasterboard and strangling a corpse, while Bunk cries "Jimmy, hell no," to understand the show's devoted fan-base and critical acclaim. I watched that entire season and character arc with my fist in my mouth. It really was that bad.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram