SlackerInc, this is probably why most of the time television writers feel the need to highlight, point to, provide exposition for, or otherwise bash viewers over the head about motives and subtext. It’s part of what is so great about Breaking Bad.
In other words, this is why we can’t have nice things.
Yikes, I’m not sure if I want to dig up those links now, or if there’s any point. It’s a bit scattered all over the place, and I’m usually a bit too snarky about it anyway. It’s not like I’ve I’ve written a manifesto on the subject. 
I’ll see if can get back to it later.
There’s another point I’d like to make, though. Even if you (general “you”) do insist on “Word of God” explanations and don’t agree with the “death of the author” idea, there’s another reason to be careful with it when you’re dealing with television and film: It’s a collaborative medium, and there’s not just one author. In the case of Breaking Bad, an idea that Vince Gilligan has may become something else in a final script written by one of the other writers. The script is then interpreted and executed by the director and the DP, in terms of how a scene is shot, how lighting is used, etc. Then the actors make their own decisions on how to play the scene out. Even subtle differences in tone of voice or facial expressions can sometimes make a big difference. Then the editors, working with the director, make their choices about which takes to use and how to put the scene together. On top of that, even the music in a scene can change the tone and feel of it. That’s a lot of interpretation and decisions by a lot of people before it ends up on your TV screen. As I said earlier, if you listen to the podcast, you’ll find that the creators of the show don’t always agree on the motivations and thoughts of the characters. “Authorial intent” then becomes a matter of who you ask.
It can also become a matter of when you ask them, since it takes so long to work out the full story of the show, and it’s not all planned out in advance. Something that has one meaning at point A can take on a different significance at a later point B. Sometimes the actors, for instance, when they do a scene, don’t know what’s coming in later scripts. Bryan Cranston has said that in the scene where he tricks Jesse into thinking that it was Gus who poisoned Brock, he himself didn’t yet know that it was Walt who really did it, and he played it straight, as if Gus really was the culprit. When we watch the scene now, we clearly see Walt as a schemer and manipulator, but the actor didn’t know about it when the scene was shot.
Similarly, viewers see the pink teddy bear with its eye missing as foreshadowing the death of Gus. However, when those scenes were shot for season two, Gus’ demise at the end of season four hadn’t yet been written. Vince has said on the matter:
That doesn’t change that the two are connected now. The bear is foreshadowing Gus’s death, and that’s just how it is, whether it was intentional or not.
This is another reason why I want to apologize for being snarky earlier about the scene where Marie slaps Skyler. At the point where it happens, I do (after thinking about it) agree that it could be reasonably thought of as a real schism between the sisters. However, I think it can be seen in a different light after the scene with them in Skyler’s office.
(Although, another reason to be careful, and a reason why you should probably take the quote I just posted with a grain of salt as well, is that Vince, at least, is known to be a bit unreliable when it comes to straight answers about the show. For instance, on the podcast, he insists that Skyler’s arc over the seasons wasn’t decided in advance, and the writers didn’t know that she would turn to the dark side, but Anna Gunn has said in interviews that her reason for wanting the part in the first place was that Vince described her as “like Carmela Soprano, but she’ll be in on the crime”. Another example that comes to mind is when Vince talks on the podcast about the scene where Mike takes out the power to a warehouse using kid’s balloons. Vince claims that he doesn’t know where he got the idea, and it was just something he thought of many years earlier. However, that scene (along with a number of others) is oddly similar to a scene from Malcolm in the Middle. So, either it’s just a coincidence, or Vince forgot about it, or for some reason he doesn’t want to give a straight answer.)
Finally, a lot of plot details and backstory is never spelled out explicitly on the show at all, like Gus’ past or exactly what went down with Walt and Grey Matter. There are cracks like that all over the place, big and small, which is fine and as as it should be. In those cases, as far as I’m concerned, you’re free to fanwank away, no matter what the creators may say in private, as long as your theories are reasonable.
I didn’t take it as Walt planning the entire thing out in advance though. When he took Holly he was seriously pissed at the world. Taking Holly was his fuck you back. When I first saw it I took it as Walt having finally cracked after everything that’s happened and he’s done. He’s lost everything except a barrel of money, money he doesn’t want for himself but for his family. After reading what other people thought happened though I’m sure he came up with the plan when he calmed down though.
I think Walt is still pissed, very pissed, and he’s not going to let it go. He didn’t want Hank to die. I also think that he wanted Jesse killed then because it would add fuel to the fire. I know I can do stupid things when I’m pissed that I know will just make me madder. Walt wants that rage to destroy whatever else is in his way.
I don’t think Walt taking Holly was a “fuck you” at all. It was Walk trying to salvage a tiny scrap of his family.
Absolutely. A desperate, out of control effort, but a family-oriented move nonetheless.
Dialogue is written for a reason. Scenes are blocked out for a reason. When Walt is yelling “What are you doing? We’re a family!” as Skylar brandishes a knife against him, it very purposively illustrates Walt’s mentality. The threat of the knife is featured carefully, even to the point of giving a knife POV shot, if I recall correctly, to very clearly illustrate the threat to family that Walt has become.
His desperate attempt to move forward in family-saving mode is cut short when the connection between Holly and Skyler is made crystal clear, and he realizes that he has to return Holly to the rest of the family, to give up everything and go off on his own in order to protect his family, even from himself.
I think this is worth posting here in case anyone misses the thread I started; the final 2 episodes will be 75 minutes each, so adjust your DVR if necessary!
Seems like the proper place to brag that I get to meet Bob Odenkirk (and David Cross) at a book signing tomorrow!
Jack.
I thought we were supposed to assume this after he kept the spider in a jar as a trophy or trinket. That’s TV writerese for “this dude’s a psycho, yo!”
The spider thing sure was creepy as hell. I wonder if he still keeps it around.
I wonder if he named it Lydia.
…I should not want to keep Mr. Belvedere in a jar in my basement.
Is there some reason it couldn’t be both? People IRL almost never have one single motivation for what they do, it’s generally mostly A with a dose of B and C thrown into the mix. Yes, he desperately wants to keep what tiny bit of his family he still can, and when Walt wants something he goes after no matter the cost to anyone else. But he’s also hurt and angry at what he sees as the rest of the family’s betrayal, and when Walt is hurt and angry he lashes out–the higher the cost to the person he’s hurt and angry with, the better.
Yeah, that was pretty blatant.
Very cool. Do you have any questions in mind for him?
Nah, not really. He and I do know some of the same people due to me doing side work for a pretty prominent podcast network so I might bring that up. I have an amazing book of photography from the LA comedy community that includes both Cross and Odenkirk so I’m going to try and get them to sign their photos in that as well as their book.
To tear the flesh; to wear the flesh. To be born unto new worlds where the flesh becomes my key.
Fucking classic.
Sweet—maybe you can get a group autograph for us?
Odenkirk was born on my first birthday, BTW.
As brilliant as Walt is, and even with Saul to guide him, he can’t begin to launder tens of millions of dollars. Only Gus had the resources to do that, and he still had mountains of undocumented cash.
There’s no way in hell that the Nazis are going to both figure out a way to launder even a few hundred thousand of it abstain from spreading the money around like a dying pimp, and I think an Albuquerque car dealer would have to report a guy with swastika tattoos and a criminal record paying with a stack of cash for 7 new BMWs. I wonder if this will be a plot point.
I think there’s a big difference between scenes which might appear somewhat ambiguous but the creative team behind them unanimously says “here is what this means, here is what happened” and scenes which might appear somewhat ambiguous and one member of the creative team randomly makes some offhand comment that might possibly be read as somewhat supporting one of those interpretations over another. I’ve been listening to the insider podcast, and there are PLENTY of times when characters do things and Vince Gilligan himself says that he’s not quite sure why they did that, he has his own theory, but it’s open to interpretation. (They didn’t specifically discuss it, but I suspect that Walt-taking-Holly in this episode would fit into that category.)
But when they all specifically say that there was a clear motivation behind what Walt said in his phone call, I think there’s a REALLY high burden of proof that anyone else has to scale before they can reasonably disagree with that interpretation.
Wait a sec–what about poor Huell? The only people who know where he is are dead now, and he’s to scared of Walt to use his phone to even order a pizza…
Is he just going to slowly wither away? :eek: