** Breaking Bad Spoilers **
He made it clear that he was "giving" something to Walt.
When Elliott first proposed that Walt come to work for them, Walt was clearly flattered. He was not inclined to turn down the offer; in fact, his first response, in all sincerity, was to characterize the offer as "very appealing."
From the script:
"Walt can’t believe what he’s hearing. But man, does he want to. For the first time in years, he sees a future that isn’t bleak -- in fact, it’s the life he should have had. This is his chance at redemption."
Then Walt says "
But you should know... I’ve got some... personal issues." The sense is clearly that, had Walt continued to speak without Elliott making a diplomatic blunder, he would have admitted the cancer on his own. Elliott would then have been able to mention their gold-plated health care plan, which would NOT have triggered Walt's pride, and he would have signed on with Gray Matter.
What actually happens, though, is Elliott does not pretend ignorance. He does not wait for Walt to tell him the truth, as he was poised to do. Instead, out of sincere desire to help his friend, he jumps in too quick and says they have the best health insurance -- implying that he already knows about the "personal issues."
They had already set up Elliott's desire to help as sincere by spending the previous minute having the two remininsce about old times -- about their friendship. Elliott was sincerely moved, and his offer wasn't expressed in a condescending way. Given the context setting up the offer, his eagerness implied that he genuinely cared about Walt. If the writers hadn't preceded the offer with the pair's intimate exchange, then it would indeed have seemed insincere.
Surprised that Elliott already knows, Walt looks up and in that moment finds Skyler on the other side of the pool watching their conversation. Suddenly he realizes she has told Elliott. This radically changes Walt's perspective of the offer, from Elliott wanting him because he's "brilliant" to Elliott wanting to feel benevolent offering charity -- a benevolence made possible in the first place, Walt believes, because of his own contribution, supposedly stolen by Elliott.
Worse, the offer is due in significant part to his wife, which further stings Walt's already fragile ego. The pathos of this scene is that it shifts from Walt being genuinely moved and convinced of Elliott's sincere gesture, to being convinced of a double betrayal. That context lends poignancy, the "what could have been."
Vince Gilligan:
"...some rich folks, Gretchen and Eliot, whom he had known - come to him and say ‘What can we do to help? We’ll pay for the best treatment, we’re going to give you a job, no strings attached.' In deus ex machina fashion they show up and offer him salvation. And at the end of that hour of TV he says thanks but no thanks, and he goes to Jesse Pinkman - who he’s on the outs with - and says 'Let’s cook.'
"He became so much more instantly interesting, that he would do something like that, that self-destructive, that prideful and flawed. That’s the worst decision he could have made, yet the most interesting. That was the thing that really allowed the show to cook with gas after that.
"He was a creature of such pride and such damaged ego that he would rather be his own man and endanger his family’s life than take a handout like that. He’s that kind of a guy."
In turn, all of this resonates with the context set up with the "talking pillow" scene, which emphasized "Joy in the little things"... like instant ramen. And family. Values that Walt manifested in
Grey Matter... until pride kicked in. A devastating reversal. So close...
The Gretchen and Elliott of the finale was a gross simplification of the characters depicted in Ep. 105,
Grey Matter. Gretchen and Elliott were treated as shallow buffoons who get their comeuppance, set up as easy targets, clichéd caricatures of vapid rich people talking about food and wine and such. But the show had earlier led us to appreciate that Walt's resentment toward the couple was questionable at best, with a good chance of being misplaced. The G&E scene suddenly embraced Walt's POV, encouraging viewers to join him in thinking of Gretchen and Elliott as justified targets of disdain. Gilligan put viewers entirely in Walt's warped, self-satisfied POV, with no distance at all, violating the show's previous ironic perspective.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share
Mr_Fluffykins
7 years ago
seeing that piece of script and excerpt, it reminds me of how genuinely cracked up elliot was when he saw walters gift, and then told the story of them eating only that ramen noodle for one whole semester to survive,
touching gesture from a really good friend, who you lost touch with and just found out you had cancer,
come to think of it, it was probably skylars idea for that gift,
adding these insights you are entirely right about about their characters seeming flat and unfulfilled, at that point,
they only half explained the fallout two, Walt was given the seasons 1 f-word in his confrontation with Gretchen about skylar calling to thank them for paying fot the bills,
i thought there would have been more explaination in the finale season, especially after that whole episode where they show Hal from malcolm in the middle, flirtingly doing chemistry with gretchen, and they are looking for the last molecule of the human body, and saying it was the soul,
that scene kinda was never truly answered to, maybe that was vinces intention, but i would like to here more,
maybe jimmy can go up against them in court
or maybe they track him down as gene with their vast wealth, and eric clapton guitar receveing skills
reply
share
mme3924-1
7 years ago
The gift that preceded Walt's Ramen noodles, which was touching and clever and a great little memory cue as well as a symbol of how far Eliot had come -- truly the gift for the man who has everything -- was one of Eric Clapton's guitars.
What adult rich man lets his birthday party guests give him gifts? Especially that kind of gift?
Why, if Eliot and Gretchen were so eager to help in any way they could, did Skylar have to approach Eliot about a job for Walt? Why didn't Eliot offer Walt a job years ago?
I'm not as convinced as you that Eliot was all that caring. As you say, he "jumped in too quick". Eliot was eager to tell Walt the kind of company he had; he was being ostentatious "we have the best health care plan available." Why not wait and listen? Because his ego is as big or bigger than Walt's. I've said this series was about manly pride, ego, being The Best, wanting recognition. It was a motive for all the major male characters.
Vince Gilligan has said he knew the ending of the story from the beginning, practically had it written. He was the creator, he wrote many episodes and directed, as well. He was Executive Producer. So why did he allow Gretchen and Eliot to become caricatures of the characters he had created? All he had to do was say "that's not who they are." I think their behavior at the end was always in them; we just didn't always see it. Did they cheat Walt? I don't know; Gilligan doesn't make it clear. But Walt thought they did and that's what mattered, to his character and the series.
reply
share
Whatlarks
7 years ago
** Breaking Bad Spoilers **
Why, if Eliot and Gretchen were so eager to help in any way they could, did Skylar have to approach Eliot about a job for Walt? Why didn't Eliot offer Walt a job years ago?
Recall what Walt did, how he behaved. Why would they have offered him a job? Who rehires people who've demonstrated emotional instability and abandoned a business in a huff?
Elliot accepting the gifts: he tells everyone not to bring gifts but they do anyway. Sure, he "shouldn't" have accepted them. Like everyone else on the show, Elliot is not depicted as an ideal human being, but as having contradictions, as being complex. To accomplish that depiction we don't view him or Gretchen exclusively in the way prideful Walt sees them. What Walt thought they did -- and what he thought others' did -- never mattered only in the sense of taking his POV as gospel.
For the most part the finale broke with that hard-won sensibility. Gilligan allowed it to happen because he lost the courage of his convictions and pandered to conventional taste with a sentimental approach in marked contrast to the challenging, destabilizing nature of all that came before.
Specifically, with exceptions, the finale actually took Walt's grandiose notion of himself at face value. It suddenly validated what the series had consistently undermined. Compared to all previous episodes, Walt's progress was relatively smooth and mechanical. Events were expeditiously arranged to the point of creating the sense of a glorious inevitability.
There Walt is, smirking while cartooned G&A cower in fear. Elliot is given a pathetic, comical gesture with the little knife, so Walt can have his cocky line echoing tough-guy Mike, whom he'd killed for stinging his pride: "Elliot, if we're gonna go that way, you'll need a bigger knife." Go Walt! Take that, you quivering rich worms with your taste for wine! But G&E are not cartoons, and Walt is not tough-guy Mike. Walt is the worm, and had been depicted as such for a long time, as his creator acknowledged many times. With exceptions, in the finale Gilligan put viewers in that worm's warped, self-satisfied POV, with no distance.
Walt's goodbye with Skyler was one of the rare honest moments of the finale, and it had the power of truth. Most of the rest was a compromise in quality, unfaithful to the heart of the story throughout the previous seasons. It was the result of trying to please everyone with comfortably familiar, mainstream, easy satisfaction. Closureama.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share
mme3924-1
7 years ago
For the most part the finale broke with that hard-won sensibility. Gilligan allowed it to happen because he lost the courage of his convictions and pandered to conventional taste with a sentimental approach in marked contrast to the challenging, destabilizing nature of all that came before.
The BB finale was not a great departure, nor was it unfaithful to the heart of the series. It amazes me that you say this, having been satisfied with the ending of Rectify, which you could be describing when you say it was "trying to please everyone with comfortably familiar, mainstream, easy satisfaction. Closurerama".
The machine gun has been roundly criticized as not being possible or probable, but then much of the show is like that. Who manages to stop a train and drain the contents of a car, as they did? Who creates and manages a sophisticated meth lab underneath a laundry? Who manages to rig an old man's wheelchair with a bomb that goes undetected? Who cooks meth in an RV in the desert and doesn't get caught? Who stacks a 5x5 block of cash in a storage unit? Much of it was improbable. It was a comedy-drama, both dark and funny. and these are the kinds of things seen in caper movies -- unbelievable but fun. In fact, Gilligan shocked the audience by interspersing these "caper" like scenes with hardcore reality, as when Todd shoots the boy. A sobering reminder, reminiscent of the adage that it's "all fun and games until somebody gets killed."
Walt was always about eliminating those who interfered or got in the way of his goal: creating his "product". He did it repeatedly, and to the innocent as well as the guilty. Why wouldn't he try to take revenge against Jack? He in fact says he's going to kill him and his crew several episodes before he puts his plan in action. And he, a smart guy, had months sitting in a cabin hatching and discarding ideas. Also, he
always tried to protect Jesse. Sometimes for his own purposes -- helping him cook meth -- sometimes out of his apparent affection for him.
Walt was a survivor, which was an even greater irony in a series filled with irony in that he could survive everything but his illness, which is what started him down the road he was on in the first place. I've never seen an interview with Gilligan that indicates he "gave in" and let others have their way with the finale. He seems pretty proud of his series, including the ending. Gilligan is not McKinnon.
reply
share
Whatlarks
7 years ago
** Breaking Bad Spoilers **
My critique isn't based on the plausibility of the machine gun; moreover, every one of the devices / conditions listed in the 2nd paragraph were undermined. As mentioned, no sense of glorious inevitability. The spirit of the series was very different. Context is important.
Recognizing the finale's radical difference from the spirit of the series, Nussbaum in the N. Yorker genuinely thought for a while it was Walt's dying fantasy -- in which case she was willing to give it a rave. I'm glad that didn't occur to me, as I think it would have been a bigger disappointment to initially assume the closureama was going to turn out to be a last flourish of destabilizing irony, only to realize it was literal.
I've never seen an interview with Gilligan that indicates he "gave in" and let others have their way with the finale.
Okay. Nothing like that was stated or implied.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share
mme3924-1
7 years ago
Nussbaum in the N. Yorker genuinely thought for a while it was Walt's dying fantasy -- in which case she was willing to give it a rave.
Oh well, if it was in The New Yorker.....
Others came up with the "fantasy" idea, too. But why? The events in the finale are no more ridiculous than other things that happened in this series, as I pointed out.
The ending is tragic hero afflicted with hubris; it's mythological. Walt stroking the shiny surface of the tank, the symbol of his skill and craft, reflected in it, just before he collapses. That's a great visual.
I've never seen an interview with Gilligan that indicates he "gave in" and let others have their way with the finale.
Okay. Nothing like that was stated or implied.
From your earlier post:
For the most part the finale broke with that hard-won sensibility. Gilligan allowed it to happen because he lost the courage of his convictions and pandered to conventional taste with a sentimental approach in marked contrast to the challenging, destabilizing nature of all that came before.
"allowed it to happen" and "lost the courage of his convictions and pandered to conventional taste...." is a strong implication that he "gave in".
Unless you mean you never implied that he said as much.
reply
share
Eva_Marrie
7 years ago
Guys and gals, we really need spoiler tags for BrBa on this thread. It's a plot-driven show, so we don't wanna ruin it for some poor soul who hasn't seen it yet.
I kinda went with the dying fantasy theory too. It was just too neat otherwise, even by BrBa 'not quite reality' standards. I've always treated the show as a fable.
reply
share
Whatlarks
7 years ago
** Breaking Bad Spoilers **
The events in the finale are no more ridiculous than other things that happened in this series, as I pointed out.
What you pointed out were acts/conditions in isolation, omitting the context or spirit in which they were consistently presented. When a story is perceived in this way all things in it will tend to seem equal. There's no way to notice distinctions.
Presentation is as critical to meaning as the thing itself. If events are seen in isolation this limits access to what's going on, to character. I've pointed out how missing chunks of context leads to confusion in the case of Rectify, like the conclusion Daniel was "emotionless," or having no idea what motivated his impulse to take apart the kitchen, or to self-sabotage his work at the pool.
If you don't put together context, things will accumulate and have a certain impact, but the sequence won't cohere to its fullest potential, and the story overall will lack the definition that lends the greatest punch.
The image you mention was one of the exceptions I acknowledged because it was in the ironic, destabilizing spirit of the series. We linger on the bloody handprint on the stainless steel vat of toxic chemicals, his mark just before death, the sum and signature of his failure as a human being. It undermines Walt's satisfied little smile. Ignorance is bliss to him, and ironic distance is pathetic, if not tragic, to us.
Unless you mean you never implied that he said as much.
That.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share
asktheages
7 years ago
BREAKING BAD SPOILERS
The final episode of BB was indeed a disappointment -- good, but not great. And above all, lacking (like you say) the spirit of the rest of the series. It very much felt like a diversion at the last minute. It was far too much of a checklist, Gilligan just checking off every little thing that fans wanted, or he thought fans wanted. No surprises. But nothing too great about the delivery of these moments, either. It just all felt like a vindication of Walt, the scales were tipped too far to his side. He gets everything he wants (relatively speaking) and dies on his own terms, happy (relatively speaking). The Taxi Driver-esque cliche'd image of Walt lying dying on the floor while the camera/his "spirit" floats above, high up to the ceiling etc, was just absurd. The entire series depicted Walt as the multi-layered, pathetic, prideful, flawed megalomaniac he was... and it suddenly ended by giving him a true Badass send-off, outsmarting the cops and killing his enemies -- and freeing Jesse, who graciously spared him. Not to mention killing Lydia, an unnecessary fan-service moment lacking any distance between Walt and the series' POV, reveling in this supposed evil/annoying wummen's death. It's all a bit much.
reply
share
mme3924-1
7 years ago
on the floor while the camera/his "spirit" floats above, high up to the ceiling etc, was just absurd. .
A spirit? Floating?
It was a crane shot! Used to show Walt lying there, small, infinitesimal perhaps, especially after all he did, all the money he made, as in "this is what you finally came to?" dying on a lab floor in some redneck hideout.
There were crane shots throughout the series. It's ridiculous to assign a "floating spirit" to one used in the finale.
The entire series depicted Walt as the multi-layered, pathetic, prideful, flawed megalomaniac he was... and it suddenly ended by giving him a true Badass send-off, outsmarting the cops and killing his enemies -- and freeing Jesse, who graciously spared him. Not to mention killing Lydia, an unnecessary fan-service moment lacking any distance between Walt and the series' POV, reveling in this supposed evil/annoying wummen's death. It's all a bit much
Walt had months in the cabin to figure out how to do it. He was a vengeful man; that was established very early. Why wouldn't he try to take out these people who had humiliated him, stolen his money, killed his brother in law, and were holding Jesse, who he had always protected, captive in order to cook his, Walt's product! His blue meth, his formula! To which they had no right. That he felt that way about his product, so perfect and so destructive, was part of who Walt was. And, as flawed as he was, he was loyal to his family, which is what he considered Jesse, as a kind of adopted son.
He eliminated everyone who had been associated with meth cooking, especially cooking his product, his invention, his intellectual property, if you will. And that included Lydia. He also had a personal grudge against her. She was portrayed from the beginning as having no loyalty, as a paranoid chicken who was in it for the money and willing to sacrifice her own partners. Her end should have come at Mike's hands, and didn't only because of her daughter. Walt just finished what Mike intended.
Gilligan had a perfect vision of his own series and executed it brilliantly. Walt swore vengeance on Jack and his gang 3 or 4 episodes before he actually carried it out; it was not a last minute choice, trying to please everyone. But it did fit the series, which contained, as I pointed out elsewhere, many such "caper" scenarios. Realistic? No. But neither was the series. It was a combination of dark comedy interspersed with the stark reality of what really happens in the world of drugs and drug making/selling. Innocent people suffer and die. It was both a morality tale and a mythological one of a flawed hero.
Let's face it: no one was going to be perfectly happy with how BB ended. Would people have been happier if Walt had died alone in the cabin in New Hampshire? Or if he had returned, walked into the DEA, and turned himself in? Or if, cured of cancer, he had fled to a foreign country, living rich and obscure in a villa on the Mediterranean? There was no good ending for Walt, and his acting as judge and jury of the men who were worse than he, and setting Jesse free, was just.
reply
share
Whatlarks
7 years ago
Those points are quite beside the central critique raised in both my and asktheages' posts.
You took the same approach to points raised in reply to your complaints about Rectify. Sequences of linked scenes, even whole episodes, ignored. Don't wanna look, don't wanna talk about it. Talk about this, instead.
Well, as noted then and now, context is pretty important stuff. Without it, you get something like a keyhole view. 100% accurate, as far as it goes.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share
mme3924-1
7 years ago
Those points are quite beside the central critique raised in both my and asktheages' posts.
You took the same approach to points raised in reply to your complaints about Rectify. Sequences of linked scenes, even whole episodes, ignored. Don't wanna look, don't wanna talk about it. Talk about this, instead.
I beg your pardon. Or, if you prefer: BS.
I addressed eagles' comments, just as I have addressed yours in other posts. You just don't like what I say so your come back, always, is that I didn't say it properly, or in the way you prefer or was either too specific or not specific enough. It's easy to say nay, but your naysaying should carry some weight, not just be because you say so. Your own posts are often little more than obfuscation, but I don't point that out because I don't think it's helpful.
You keep bringing up the kitchen debacle in Rectify. I even addressed that. I said whatever Daniel's motive, he destroyed his mother's kitchen. Full stop. Period. But you want to dwell on how that was not destructive because he didn't do it out of anger, but because he wanted to remodel the kitchen. Good grief. I think even McKinnon would argue with you about that.
I've respected your posts and your intellect but I think I'm done skirmishing with you.
reply
share
Whatlarks
7 years ago
Well, that's still not addressing the central critiques of either the finale of Breaking Bad or the example from Rectify.
It's not "addressing" anything to say "he destroyed his mother's kitchen," since of course that was never at issue. The issue was why he impulsively set to taking apart the kitchen. Evidently you still can't bear to look at the context informing it.
you want to dwell on how that was not destructive because he didn't do it out of anger
A perfect example of the above, because it's just not what was said. It's a straw man because the point was never that it wasn't destructive and always that it wasn't anger that motivated him to begin the kitchen reno. As mentioned, you missed the entire episode's worth of context leading to that moment and informing it.
Missing, then persistently refusing to look at that context has caused you to mischaracterize the motivation as anger. This in turn has prevented you from appreciating the degree of poignancy in the aftermath.
It's hardly "respecting" posts or intellect when you steadfastly avoid what someone actually says, and in fact distort it instead.
It wouldn't be so if the actual context noted were confronted, and some critique offered as to its effectiveness. But to never touch on it, yet claim it's been addressed, is not respect. It's something else.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share
Makarov-324
7 years ago
I thought the finale of BB was pretty much in line with how the entire series is filled with varying quality. Now that is a show where it really felt like they were flying by the seat of their pants.
reply
share
Whatlarks
7 years ago
Putting aside whatever "varying quality" might mean to an individual viewer, BB was actually meticulously planned.
In any serialized show the writing team doesn't plan in detail way in advance; breaking episodes is done when everyone has returned to the room for the new season, and the showrunner outlines his/her vision for the year. And of course writers constantly respond to evolving understandings/appreciations of characters as they go along; all good serialized shows are organic this way.
Also, the BB writers regularly pulled their hair out because Gilligan valued deliberately forcing characters into corners without allowing for the luxury of having an obvious cavalry ride to the rescue. And there were always destabilizing consequences to each success. That approach takes a ton of creativity relative to mainstream shows.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share
Eva_Marrie
7 years ago
As for varying quality, I feel like BrBa didn't become great until S2, maybe even partway through it. Before that it was interesting and full of potential, but hadn't quite found its feet in terms of tone and style, which the writer's strike probably didn't help with. S1 feels like a completely different creature to the rest of the show. It was a black comedy, while the rest of the series is super dramatic with bits of occasional eccentric humour thrown in. The comedy sort of tapered off during early S2: the last moment was the 'I'm a blowfish' dialogue.
reply
share
Whatlarks
7 years ago
That seems natural enough. From a development perspective, you really find out what kind of show you've got once the cast is up and running. Jesse, after all, was going to be killed off in S1 in the original plan. That would have meant an entirely different show - and probably not anywhere as good.
From a narrative perspective, things had increasingly heavy consequences as Walt was increasingly compromised-yet-adept, so the tone would have to adjust accordingly. Bumbling Mr. Chips and his goofball sidekick couldn't be sustained, at least as often.
But at least one central quality stayed constant, the show's destabilizing nature, its ironic POV, whether accomplished through humour or other means. The BB world, and Walt's place in it, never seemed simply a reflection of Walt's own perspective.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share
Makarov-324
7 years ago
Also, the BB writers regularly pulled their hair out because Gilligan valued deliberately forcing characters into corners without allowing for the luxury of having an obvious cavalry ride to the rescue. And there were always destabilizing consequences to each success. That approach takes a ton of creativity relative to mainstream shows.
That's giving it way too much credit in my opinion. It's filled with moments where Walt gets himself into trouble and then gets himself out with some absurd plan combined with a lot of luck. That plus a ton of filler and things that go nowhere. If this is much different from mainstream shows, I don't think it's far off.
reply
share
Whatlarks
7 years ago
The part of the quote you put in bold included the word obvious. That's what I spoke to -- i.e., bolded through words.
The significant difference with mainstream shows was in a few ways. But of the two noted above: One, deliberately painting characters into corners and finding innovative yet plausible ways -- according to character attributes, mainly, but also to the stylized nature of the show -- for them to escape, a major source of delight for fans.
Two, the destabilizing, ironic POV effect, whereby viewers consistently understand more than Walt, and whereby success frequently comes with a twist of some unanticipated consequence. So that, really, there's only been short-term escape, and it's dug the character in deeper. What they gain - time, freedom - comes at an increasingly grievous cost.
No idea what you mean by "tons of filler and things that go nowhere."
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share
Makarov-324
7 years ago
The significant difference with mainstream shows was in a few ways. But of the two noted above: One, deliberately painting characters into corners and finding innovative yet plausible ways -- according to character attributes, mainly, but also to the stylized nature of the show -- for them to escape, a major source of delight for fans.
I'm just not sure that is actually innovative when it comes to TV. It was basically Gilligan's island where they try to escape their situation every week with a little connection between episodes as things get a little worse sometimes. Walt tries some goofy plan while hiding it from the family, Jesse screws some stuff up, rinse and repeat. Lost was far better at putting characters into situations and developing them years before Breaking Bad.
When it comes to the audience knowing more than the characters, I mean that's in tons of TV already even classic Alfred Hitchcock stuff.
reply
share
Mr_Fluffykins
7 years ago
Vince Gilliagans island
lost had great character development
particularly sawyer, sawyer was my favourite by the end,
maybe if hurley had actually lost some weight it woulda been interesting
Ben aswell, you see him from birth(his mom was played by his wife, who was the red head from trueblood)
Charlie going from heroin addict to martyr, plus seeing what made him into an addict
but i got a soft spot for reforming heroin addicts, especially one who do a kick ass rendition of wonderwall as a street preformer
reply
share
prairie-16766
7 years ago
Sawyer was my favorite character, especially when we learned he loved Watership Down!
Now starring on Colony, in which the aliens may be aliens or they may be some high tech invention of Trump's government.
reply
share
Whatlarks
7 years ago
"Little connection between episodes... Gilligan's Island..." What inane remarks. They're too far gone to bother with.
"Understand more than Walt" does not only or primarily refer to "knowing" more about some external context than the character. In its most important sense it refers to understanding more about his inner world than he does. Mainstream/network TV does not tend to take a detached and critical POV of its protagonists and events, veering off the grain and destabilizing viewers' natural urge to adopt his/her frame of reference and assumptions, showing him/her to be increasingly, tragically, self-deceived. It does not tend to unsettle by that means, and others such as ambiguity, subversion of genre, loading up the sense of fated doom, etc. It tends to aim the opposite way, building tension in order to more or less resolve it, placating the desire to experience an ordered world. It aims for easy satisfactions.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
reply
share