theheisenblog

[theheisenblog]

Breaking Bad's Gothic Influence -- Peer-Reviewed Article

The article “A Teacher Goes Gothic: Walter White, Heisenburg, and the Dark Revenge of Science” argues that Breaking Bad offers a fresh take on the portrayal of teachers in pop culture, as these characters are usually depicted as "chivalrous bearers of the torch of civility" who embody the "liberality of the humanities to the underprivileged" (McGrail et al 487). It performs this subversion in characterization through the influence of gothic literature, as the authors draw comparisons from the likes of Frankenstein, The Faust Legend, and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. In particular, it notes the themes of scientific hubris, a desire for power, and an evil alter-ego that are shared between Breaking Bad and the classics. Through this gothic influence, Breaking Bad is able to use Walter White as a vessel for showcasing the depravity of human selfishness with a twist of 21st century financial anxiety that resonates with modern audiences. 

This article primarily has the motivation of filling in a research gap, as its argument is unique and not a counterargument to any opposing researchers. While it may fill gaps in the realm of Breaking Bad-specific literary research, when it comes to gothic literature as a whole, this article serves as an extension of previous knowledge in how it uses examples from old classics. 

Permalink: https://doi.org/10.5325/intelitestud.20.4.0486

[theheisenblog]

Walter White, Greed, and Competition -- Documentary Analysis

Greed can be considered one of Walter White’s biggest character flaws, if not the biggest. While he starts his drug making journey under the justification of financial necessity, we still get hints early on that more selfish desires underlay his need to pursue this dangerous career. This made me think about the blurry line between greed and necessity that Walt often manipulates when having to justify himself. When is greed justifiable (if at all) and when does it become ultimately destructive? To get more perspective on this broader topic, I looked beyond Breaking Bad and watched the documentary “Greed: Is it Necessarily Bad?” by ABC News.

This documentary has a pretty evident capitalist bias, amplified by its featured entrepreneur/billionaire Ted Turner and economist Walter Williams. They attempt to destigmatize the word “greed,” arguing that it is the understandable human desire to want more than what you need, or to be the best. Especially in America where our culture is defined by competition, greed is argued to be the basis of how our society ticks. Without it, there’d be less opportunity and innovation. While the documentary does try to clarify that unchecked greed can be destructive, this is far less prevalent than its stronger stance that those who are greedy are the ones advancing society, using the analogy that the rich make the metaphorical pie bigger for everyone to eat rather than unfairly stealing slices from the poor. 

That last point, the pie metaphor, is something I really raised my eyebrow at. While the mega rich may like to paint their achievements in a philanthropic light, the “pie” is often only able to be so big because of the people exploited along the way. I think you can compare Walt’s descent into drug making as commentary on the ruthless competition of capitalist America. Walt is only able to move up in his field the more violent and exploitative he becomes. No matter what noble claims he makes about himself, his business is built on the backs of those he is willing to step on or endanger. With so many lives hurt and at risk, can this bigger “pie” truly be enjoyed by everyone? And if they get to enjoy it, is it even sweet? 

This isn’t to say I completely disagree with all the points made in the documentary. Wanting more than what you have isn’t necessarily bad, it can push limits and pave the way for discovery. Competition can also act as a catalyst for innovation. Though, if greed were to drive one entity to dominate the competition through unfair means, would innovation truly take place, or would worthy competitors not be given a proper chance? Take for instance the murder of Gale, a brilliant and innovative chemist who, unlike the greed-driven Walt, was motivated by a pure love for science. While the elimination of Gale allows Walt to succeed in the competition, if you look at the bigger picture, what ideas are now forever lost? Later on, Walt is eventually able to secure a monopoly over the meth industry, but with no competitors left, what reason is there to innovate? While it may be silly to ask these questions about the production of something like meth, you can apply this thinking to more everyday industries. 

In general, while I didn’t agree with many of the points made by the documentary, I still think it was thought provoking to watch, and it made me think about the critiques Breaking Bad makes on America’s competitive economic culture.

[theheisenblog]

Jane's Death in Different Perspectives - Looking at News Articles

Most fans of Breaking Bad can agree that Jane’s death is one of the most harrowing moments in the series. Walt’s calculated decision to let her die whilst having enough remorse to break into tears shortly after paints a disturbing image that sticks in your head long after it’s over. For a scene that’s so emotionally taxing, you may wonder how both actors Bryan Cranston and Krysten Ritter approached it.

News article “The Breaking Bad Scene That Made Bryan Cranston Break Down in Tears” published by SlashFilm places the spotlight on Cranston while also sprinkling in the flare of the author's personal takes. The article actually makes an upfront argument that Jane’s death is the saddest moment in the series, drawing comparisons between the White family fight in “Ozymandias” or Walt living his sad new life in New Hampshire. The author, Micheal Boyle, defends this by painting Jane in an especially sympathetic light, calling her a “woman who seemed really cool” and arguing that her enabling Jesse’s addiction or blackmailing Walt wouldn’t have happened if “Jesse hadn’t knocked her off her wagon in the first place.” Overall, the tone is pretty informal with not much evidence to further support these claims, so it feels more like emotional padding to build up to the actual attention grabber of the article: Bryan Cranston.

Speaking of, it’s revealed that Cranston found this scene particularly hard to shoot since he couldn’t help but see the features of his daughter in Ritter’s face. Before filming, he’d made a pros and cons list of saving Jane in order to get into Walt’s mindset, the most major pro being that “She’s just a kid. She could be my daughter, she’s that young.” Boyle uses this behind-the-scenes context to argue that Jane’s death is Walt’s “point of no return.”

“Why Krysten Ritter Will ‘Never Forget’ Her Breaking Bad Death Scene” published by ScreenRant covers the same topic but with the spotlight on Jane’s actress instead. Before opening on the actress’s perspective, like the last article, it provides the context of Jane’s significance in the story. This time, the tone is noticeably more formal and much less opinionated, making general and non-divisive statements like “Her arc within the series is both captivating and heart-wrenching, culminating in a moment that remains one of the most memorable and controversial in Breaking Bad's history.” 

Ritter describes not feeling too disturbed by her death upon first reading the script, having the mindset (in her words) of “Cool, rock and roll, she dies. So fun!” This contrasts with Cranston, who was heavily grappling with the scene before shooting, as evident by the pros and cons list he made to get in character. However, Ritters then describes how Jane's death sunk in when she was finally in the moment. Through having to wear death makeup, a chest cast for Aaron Paul to violently hit, and seeing Cranston sit so quietly after the take, she was able to truly feel the intensity of the moment. Differently than the first article, this one concludes by emphasizing the impact made on the actors instead of the characters they portrayed. While I find this article to be better written than the first, both have equally important perspectives to share.

[theheisenblog]

ChatGPT in Media Analysis

In recent times, many would argue that media literacy is declining at rapid rates due to a rise in anti-intellectualism, or just general apathy. The overuse of open AI can be cited as a catalyst for this trend. As many would say, why do the thinking if AI can do it for me? In this post I’ll be taking a quick look at the level ChatGPT is able to analyze media, using Breaking Bad as my example. 

A general trend that can be observed is that ChatGPT will often provide a variety of viewpoints while using phrases like “is sometimes interpreted” or “leading some viewers to feel.” While this makes sense when you consider how open AI works in the first place–condensing a boatload of information into its most common patterns–this phrasing also makes the writing appear more distant and objective, even when asked more interpretive questions. In this sense, you still have to think for yourself on what ideas you agree with most (they provide you with so many).

On some hot issues like the contention around Skyler’s character, ChatGPT is able to provide fairly in-depth and accurate information. It can differentiate between fan interpretations and the original intent, as well as referencing things the creators have said (and being able to pick out specific interviews when asked).

When it comes to artistic works, ChatGPT seems to prefer discussing the broader picture. My goal here was to find something that’s just objectively untrue or at least has a lot of evidence against it, but ChatGPT goes into its interpretive prompts (Did Walt love Jesse more than Flynn? Was Walt or Gus smarter? Why did Walt choose Heisenberg as his name?) with such impartiality and fair evidence that you’d have to really nitpick to find something terribly wrong if I’m being honest (either that or I’m not asking the right questions, but believe me I did this for a while and I think I’m going insane). After all, this show has been analyzed to the moon and back, there’s a lot of data to work with here.

Still, the only reason why you’d be hard pressed to find something wrong is because real people on the internet took the time to gather their real and original thoughts. The fun part about consuming media is having it seep into your mind in a way that’s unique to you, as everyone has different experiences and areas of expertise that shape how they resonate with artistic works. I mean, the whole purpose of art is to embrace our humanity and communicate it in creative ways! So as I finally close this little ChatGPT window on my screen, I’m gonna tell you to close yours and look at your shows a little more personally!

[theheisenblog]

Book Review - The Dark Triad of Personality

Today I’m going to do something a little different and talk about a book as it tangentially relates to BB/BCS. The Dark Triad of Personality - Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy in Everyday Life by Dr. Minna Lyons is a monograph published by Elsevier. Check out the e-book here → https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128142912/the-dark-triad-of-personality

This book aims to summarize the latest research on the Dark Triad traits while contextualizing these behaviors in everyday scenarios, such as these individuals in the workplace versus in romantic relationships. I’ll summarize some of the segments that caught my attention while skipping through, particularly in relation to the characters of Walter and Jimmy/Saul (DISCLAIMER: this is not intended to be a diagnosis!)

Chapter One introduces us to the main concept. The Dark Triad of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy are overlapping traits that share a core of selfishness, callousness, and manipulation, yet have distinct identities of their own. Narcissism is pretty straightforward: the inflated view of oneself that isn’t often grounded in reality. Lyons interestingly notes that out of the three traits, narcissism (in a non-clinical sense) most observably fluctuates with environmental factors. Particularly, studies have shown that stress exposure lowers traits of narcissism in individuals, while being in positions of influence (positive or negative) raises it. This fluctuation is something observed in Walter, as being so regularly emasculated at the start of the series didn’t allow for his narcissistic tendencies to be as obvious. Though, as his rise to power progresses, he becomes increasingly volatile and abusive. While it’s debated if Walter fits the criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder, his tendencies definitely ring the bells for narcissistic abuse.

Machiavellianism is the chameleon-like ability to adapt and manipulate situations to create leverage in one’s own favor. While both protagonists exhibit this trait, it is especially prevalent in the charismatic Slippin’ Jimmy. Lyons describes these individuals as “skillful political maneuvers, with an eye of opportunities to exploit in order to achieve personal gain” (2). An example of this was Jimmy staging a fall on the billboard in order to make headlines while competing with HHM. Lyons notes a study that found high fluid intelligence to be linked with this trait. Fluid intelligence, as opposed to crystallized intelligence, is the ability to problem solve without extensive experience. This fits right in with Jimmy’s character, as he is eventually able to make a name for himself using his wit despite getting his law degree from an unranked correspondence school. This is something Chuck reprimands Jimmy for, arguing that he’s “not a real lawyer” because he cheated his way there. Jimmy’s schemes are arguably the most defining aspect of his character, and the part of himself he grapples the heaviest with as he fails to break past his reputation as a con artist.

The final trait, psychopathy, is one we could observe in both protagonists, but much more in our infamous drug lord. Psychopathy is characterized by an extreme disregard for people and rules, and can be divided into two categories. Primary/“successful” psychopathy describes cold and calculated individuals that are able to mask themselves in a way that grants them power in society. Meanwhile, secondary/“unsuccessful” psychopathy is hallmarked by high risk and impulsive behavior that usually ends in imprisonment or general disapproval from society.

I think it should be made clear that Walter does not completely lack empathy or remorse, yet his desire to protect his ego is what takes precedence over doing the right thing. Of the two, the cerebral and calculative Walt displays more traits of primary psychopathy, shown by how he is able to climb the ladder so high before ever being suspected by the police. Although, he does exhibit more irrational and impulsive behaviors when his ego is under attack, hence why he killed Mike. His impulsivity is just more controlled than say Jimmy, a known delinquent with colleagues who generally have low expectations for his behavior. I think the tendencies Jimmy has lands him between the two types, as he’s cultivated a successful career with his manipulation, but isn’t the most cool-headed person. However, compared to Walt, Jimmy displays much more obvious signs of empathy and remorse, making his manipulative schemes resemble that of a struggling addict more so than a sadist. Because of this, I’m somewhat hesitant to include him in this discussion alongside Walt, though it should be noted how easily he can disregard the humanity of his opponents, consistently pushing the boundaries of what’s okay despite insisting that he’ll change.

From what I’ve read, I’d recommend this book to anybody interested in personality psychology. The ideas are interesting and well-written, keeping me engaged as I went along. The author does a good job at introducing different theories in personality while not attempting to argue that one is the absolute truth without data to back it up. The tables and figures are easy to digest and add another dimension to the information provided. However, as a disclaimer, this book does not aim to discuss the ramifications and nuances of clinical disorders like NPD or ASPD, as traits like narcissism and psychopathy are discussed through the lens of personality theory. For more specific diagnostic criteria or treatment of these disorders, it’s best to look elsewhere. 

[theheisenblog]

The Winner Takes it All

This is honestly one of my favorite scenes in the show in how it portrays the dynamic between the McGill brothers, so I’m gonna yap about it. There was a Youtube comment by CozyVemgeance that put it better than I could: “this scene feels like a funeral for someone you wish you knew better.” When we so often see the two at each other’s throats, you watch this scene wishing things could’ve been different. 

The lyrics of ABBA’s “The Winner Takes it All” portray the win/lose mindset Jimmy has towards the world, especially towards his brother. The first verse “though it’s hurting me / now it’s history” shows his tendency to push down his negative feelings and project a charismatic persona to the world, shown by his cartoonishly bad singing and his insistence on getting Chuck on stage. These short interactions highlight Jimmy’s heightened social prowess and comfort compared to Chuck, something Chuck always envied of him in spite of his more refined position in life. Sometimes the poor singer is the one that’s more entertaining to the crowd.

Jimmy then belts out the song’s namesake, handing the mic off to Chuck who much more pleasantly sings “the loser standing small.” This references how in the future, Jimmy will claim “victory” over Chuck, contributing to his suicide. Jimmy then physically pulls Chuck on stage singing “beside the victory / that’s her destiny,” literally reenacting the lyrics and further cementing the role Jimmy played as victor in damning Chuck to his fate.

Chuck and Jimmy sing the next two verses interchangeably, which describe the false sense of security that Jimmy in particular felt in their relationship: “building me a home / thinking I’d be strong there / but I was a fool.” The most telling moment though, is Chuck stealing the mic after Jimmy made a point to share. Jimmy, while alarmed, doesn’t fight it, he just stands back and claps as his brother’s vocal talent leaves him in the shadows. While Chuck struggles with the social aspect of sharing a microphone at a karaoke bar, an aspect he generally shines in in life is flexing the skills he’s worked tirelessly to perfect. If he can’t make them laugh like Jimmy, he sure can amaze them. This moment also reinstates the meaning of the previous lyrics, as Jimmy thought they were sharing a good time together, only for his own moment to be stolen. 

The scene then transitions to the two laying in bed, bumbling the lyrics together with no audience nor an expectation of a performance (not one to entertain or one to impress). Without these outside expectations, the competitive tension between these two is softened, and they’re allowed to just sing a song together like nothing else in the world matters. This is what Jimmy wanted originally, to sing a song with his brother without a care in the world, but unfortunately, the two have deep qualms with themselves that would only serve to drive them further apart.

[theheisenblog]

Deleted Scene - Walt’s Science Lesson

Intended to be placed in season 2, this scene features Walt teaching his class about immiscible liquids–substances that don’t combine to form a homogenous mixture. In this example, he uses vinegar and vegetable oil, which don’t mix due to their difference in polarity. However, with the introduction of an egg as the emulsifier, the two liquids are able to combine into mayonnaise. 

Fans have generally come to two interpretations. A) the liquids represent Walt and Jesse, with the meth business being the emulsifier that brings them together, or B) the liquids represent Walter White and Heisenberg, with the egg representing his cancer diagnosis that enacts his transformation. Whichever one rings more true is up for debate.

When Walt initially tries mixing the two together, he states that “no matter how much mechanical energy I apply [...] their cohesion of like molecules and repulsion of unlike ones prevents these two liquids from staying mixed.” In the context of the Walt/Jesse theory, this could mirror how Walt’s passion for teaching chemistry could never reach through to Jesse while he was still in school due to his inattentiveness and general apathy. In Walt’s words here, the two “normally have no business mixing,” a delinquent and an academic. Throughout their time as business partners, their relationship is mostly rocky in spite of the two’s occasional efforts to connect. It often seems the only thing binding them together, other than some twisted familial bond, is the shared trauma and responsibility of the meth trade. 

If this were to be viewed through the lens of Walt’s two identities, you could probably assign a liquid to each half. The vegetable oil, which sits on top and takes up the majority of the glass, is the timid Walter White that the world is used to seeing. This is the nonpolar half with evenly distributed charges, as the positive and negative aspects of Walt’s personality are balanced in a way that doesn’t make him a particularly strong presence in his life. However, lying underneath is the vinegar, representative of Heisenberg, an identity that he first claims in the scene’s intended season. With the addition of electronegative oxygen atoms, vinegar has more of a negative pull that causes it to be polar, representing the more obvious negative qualities of this part of Walt’s personality. While the two sides of himself initially have no business mixing, the lower half still exists, it always has. It just needed a reason to come out of hiding.

You can probably tell which one I prefer (it’s the second), but I’d like to hear your thoughts!

[theheisenblog]

"And the Bag's in the River" - Episode Analysis

S1 E3 is, in my opinion, one of the most interesting episodes to look back on with context of the whole series, knowing what levels of violence Walt will easily stoop to in the future. Here is everything I interpreted upon rewatch (non-chronological). After writing this, I definitely want to rewatch more episodes to see what I missed initially!

The Color Yellow

The costume designers of Breaking Bad are known to be very intentional with their placement of colors, so it should be noted how much yellow is present across this episode. Throughout the show, yellow is used to symbolize the meth industry as a whole. Walt is depicted wearing a light yellow button up adorned with a black and white plaid pattern. The yellow symbolizes how his dilemma in this episode will be his final push into truly being a part of the business, despite not being suited for it as described by Krazy 8. Since white and black in this show symbolize good and evil respectively, the pattern shows how split Walt is on the decision to kill him, literally creating a pros and cons list. Contrast this to Gus’ attire, a plain yellow button up. With yellow by itself, we don’t get the sense of moral conflict we feel with Walt, just the cold calculation of whatever benefits his empire. Also contrast this to Walt’s attire in later seasons, predominantly black and green, symbolizing his corruption and greed that even supersede being the ideal strategist (see Mike’s speech about him ruining “a good thing”), hence the lack of yellow.

Additionally, the infamous plate is a bold yellow. With the shard Krazy 8 stole being such a color, you get the sense that the meth business is a jagged thing more predisposed to harming Walt than helping him in the way he was ready to help Krazy 8. In fact, his decision to be hospitable enough to serve him a sandwich on a plate is the very thing that allowed Krazy 8 to attain this weapon. Humanizing his enemies gets him nowhere. If he wants to survive, he’ll have to gradually become a ruthless monster.

Some other minor notes are Krazy 8’s tattered yellow vest and Jesse’s bold yellow undershirt, making them appear visually more experienced in the meth business than Walt, who wears a babyish shade in comparison. Gretchen is also seen wearing a yellow shirt in the flashback sequence, which could allude to how his feelings of being used by her and Elliot drove him to cooking meth instead of taking their help.

The Composition of Life

Shortly after the episode opens on Walt and Jesse cleaning up the gorey aftermath of the sunken bathtub, we witness a flashback scene between Walt and Gretchen in their grad school days. The two are mapping out the percent composition of each element in the human body, though peculiarly, they are 0.111958% short. We don’t get an answer as to what this missing percentage may be, letting us sit with the data as present Walt is laboriously scrubbing blood off the floor. With the body in such an unrecognizable state, it’s as if Emilio is reduced to nothing but a mass of chemicals, cleaned up with the same amount of decency and respect as a spill in the lab. It’s difficult to pick out the essence of humanity in a slush of organs and blood.

Though, after Walt makes his first (non-spur of the moment) kill in Krazy 8, we hear Gretchen’s suggestion–”What about the soul?” Walt ponders this interaction while looking over a freeway. After being able to know his victim before making the choice to kill for the first time, he is able to offer Krazy 8 the humanity he couldn’t initially offer Emilio. These two had souls. He was able to peer into Krazy 8’s soul for a brief moment; even if he turned out to be lying, there was still a light in his eyes indicative of a human spirit that couldn’t be quantified by science. Yet he made the choice to take that and crush it between his fingers, into a lifeless mass of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen…all left to rot.

Walt takes off school the next day, choosing to leave his students with a video simply titled “Carbon,” which is ironic given that it is the element of life.

A Conversation

Despite knowing it won’t make things easier, Walt asks for Krazy 8’s real name to establish a sense of comradery. Domingo–Spanish for Sunday, as he points out. This could be applied to multiple interpretations. For one, since Sunday is the day of resurrection, it can be viewed as symbolic for victory over death. Killing Domingo, while being a win for Walt’s physical safety, is painted much more as a defeat with the way he cries and begs on his knees for forgiveness. He was looking for every possible reason to not have to do this. On the other hand, Sunday is viewed as a day of renewal, so the mention of it could draw attention to how this act will permanently alter the trajectory of Walt’s character moving forward. 

While the two talk, Walt sits on the floor to get on his level, and offers him a beer as if they’re just buddies having a drink on the patio. While the two laugh, Walt is quickly cut off by a coughing fit. It's his lung cancer, the very thing that pushed him into this mess. He can’t have even the smallest moment of levity in this situation, he needs to make a decision.

The Act

Once Walt is certain of what he needs to do, he opens the basement door a black silhouette against the light, as he is both literally and metaphorically walking into darkness. 

While in the act of strangulation, Walt can only get enough leverage to finish the job by planting his leg on the pole, allowing it to get stabbed. This shows that a part of him died with this act, or at the very least, that he cannot commit this act without coming out mentally scarred. His new line of work will require a lot of sacrifice. Similar to before where Walt sat on the floor to get on Domingo’s level, he kneels to the ground and apologizes profusely, on the same level as a dead man because in some ways he is one too.

[theheisenblog]

Subject Accuracy in Pop Culture - Donna Nelson and Breaking Bad

While watching Breaking Bad, have you ever sat through the scenes of Walt or Gale’s jargon-filled rants and wondered…who wrote this? Does Vince Gilligan have some crazy side passion for chemistry, or was there an expert in the writer’s room? As it turns out, Dr. Donna Nelson, professor of chemistry at the University of Oklahoma and 2016 president of the American Chemical Society, was the science advisor for the series. Using her expertise in chemistry, physics, and even electrical engineering, she edited scripts and provided accurate chemical structures/formulas. 

According to an interview by ZDNet, Nelson first heard of the position through a weekly magazine from the American Chemical Society–Chemical and Engineering News. In it was an interview where Gilligan admits that, while he was able to find a real DEA agent to advise him on the criminal aspect of the show, he didn’t have the budget for a scientist to guide him through the chemistry. Seeing this as an opportunity to break the mold when it came to scientific accuracy in pop culture, Nelson jumped at the opportunity anyway, and had worked closely with the creators since. Whether it be editing dialogue to mirror how organic chemists talk in the lab, or straightening out Walt’s lesson on different types of alkenes, Nelson’s work on Breaking Bad instilled a sense of believability that helped to sell the show’s appeal.

In an age where information is much more readily available than before, I personally think shows must adapt accordingly with some level of plausibility in their respective fields. This is an opinion that Nelson seems to similarly hold, stating in the same interview that "Our population generally is becoming more and more science literate. [...] You're supposed to have this suspension of disbelief in order to get immersed in the show."

Of course, shows and movies are mostly here to entertain. 100% accuracy is not often a necessity! In the case of Breaking Bad, an exaggerated explosion here or there, like in the case of Tuco’s office, doesn’t do much to diminish the appeal. The point here is to establish that Walt is now willing to partake in extreme violence if necessary. The science is more of a prop than it is centerstage. However, other times the goal of a scene is to establish Walt’s intellectualism, meticulousness, and obsession with synthesizing his product to near perfection. In that case, it would just be silly if the chemistry was wrong. You wouldn't get as much of a sense that Walt cares deeply about his craft and is intolerant of mistakes.

Whether you’re a stickler for accuracy or not, we can probably agree that being well-researched is key to making good fiction. While bending the rules at times can allow for fun and spectacle, sometimes a grounded approach (even in the small details) is what seals a work as truly eye-catching. In this sense, Nelson’s contributions are an important aspect of what makes Breaking Bad tick. 

[theheisenblog]

Star Wars is another example of a series that explores the corruption of power, and how fear and arrogance further fuel the fire of one’s descent from grace. From my extremely limited knowledge (and some Google searches, I tried my best) I find there to be interesting parallels/contrasts between Walter White and Anakin Skywalker. Both characters progressively fall into ruthlessness the more obsessed they become with reclaiming the control they deem to have been stolen from them. Near the tail ends of their character arcs they attempt acts of redemption–Anakin’s self-sacrifice resulting in his death, and Walt lying on the phone to save Skyler from the consequences of her involvement (just to name one example). Despite these acts, they do not erase the wrongdoing they’ve caused, and in universe most of the characters hold either negative or conflicted feelings towards them. In the case of Walter, rightfully, he dies completely rejected from the world, being ultimately driven by self-satisfaction in spite of his human attachments (as opposed to Anakin, who from my understanding, has a more even split between selfish and attachment-driven motivations).

The History of Star Wars, I will tell you

Star Wars was created by Gerorge Lucas to pay homage to many space faring series that he enjoyed as a child and According to (Geroge Lucas Biography, https://shorturl.at/uKsLE ) the creation of Star Wars was a made on a huge gamble for Fox Studios who currently was quickly coming upon financial ruin and if Star Wars performed poorly it would be the end of them. Thankfully their gamble paid off and the Star Wars movies very quickly became the talk of the world as everyone was kidnapped by the enjoyment and thrill that the movies brought as nothing had done what Star Wars had accomplished

George Lucas with Dave Fioloni Created the now hit series Star Wars the Clone Wars that was released in 2008. The Clone Wars animated series was created to further explore and explain what occurred after Star Wars Attack of the Clones and before Star Wars Revenge of the Sith. The Series was also created as a show suitable for younger audiences with stories being made more simply and geared towards children to make Star Wars more available to a broader audience as the stories of the movies were believed to be too complex even for some adults. As such The Clone wars series was created with that in mind, but despite it being created for younger audiences the TV show was a huge hit among all ages

link for image - https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.disneyplus.com%2Fseries%2Fstar-wars-the-clone-wars%2F1wYXzjabXGVZ&psig=AOvVaw0kmjeoSU7WHJfC0LQl2TCm&ust=1739457522618000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBQQjRxqFwoTCNDbs7quvosDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE

[theheisenblog]

Showtime!

Hello everyone, and welcome to the Heisenblog! Before we go any further, I’d like to set up some groundwork and tease what I'm looking to cover!

For those unfamiliar, Breaking Bad follows Walter White, a timid, underdog chemistry teacher who gets hit with a life changing lung cancer diagnosis. Working two jobs to make ends meet and feeling deeply dissatisfied with his prolonged lack of agency in life, he decides to use his chemistry knowledge to synthesize the purest meth on the street in hopes of paying off his treatment (as well as fulfilling more personal needs regarding his ego). He partners with ex-student and delinquent Jesse Pinkman, deeming his knowledge of drug dealing to be valuable for their business operation.

I’m also going to be discussing Better Call Saul, a prequel set four years before the original series that focuses on Jimmy McGill, A.K.A Saul Goodman, Walt’s lawyer who uses underhanded tactics to keep the meth operation afloat. Less explosive than its counterpart, BCS takes a more subdued and psychological approach in its storytelling, detailing the nuances of Jimmy’s transformation into the criminal and comedic lawyer we know him to become. If you’re curious about either series and haven’t watched yourself, my posts should still be digestible, provided you don’t care about spoilers! 

The focus of my blog will be analyses of the themes, characters, and symbolism of both series. Breaking Bad delves into a range of themes including greed, family, change, identity, and masculinity, with its characters acting as vessels of exploration for such themes. I think my personal favorite to explore is masculinity, due to the real world irony of the show’s fans largely being men who…missed the point. A man provides, “even when he’s not appreciated, or respected” as series antagonist Gus puts it in the episode "Más". But when does the adoption of this outlook dip into toxic masculinity, the over-conformation to masculine stereotypes to the point of destructive behavior?

Another big theme I’m looking to cover is identity, as it strongly permeates both series. BB and BCS oversee a transformation of the protagonists from their original selves (Walter White, Jimmy McGill) into their alter egos (Heisenberg, Saul Goodman). The earliest definition of an alter ego describes a “trusted friend”, though at what point do either character’s alter egos serve them as a friend, versus destroy them from the inside? The etymology of alter ego is derived from Latin: “another I.” In a similar vein, at what point can these alter egos be considered “another,” instead of one in the same with the character’s true self? 

The beginning of Walt’s split identity in particular is cleverly illustrated with the use of a chemistry lesson on chirality, when mirror image compounds are non-superimposable. This is an example of symbolism used to illustrate an overarching theme and to flesh out a character. I find the use of chemistry to be the most interesting, so I’m looking forward to expanding on it.

I’ve gone on long enough for an introduction, but I hope I’ve given an intriguing taste as to what’s to come! Whether you’re a dedicated fan, casual watcher, or just someone passing by, I’ll do my best to make this an enjoyable read!

[theheisenblog]

"family is everything"

https://akashshetyeblog.wordpress.com/2019/05/28/breaking-bad-through-the-eyes-of-walter-white/