SUPERVERSIVE: “Breaking Bad” is Superversive, and no, that’s not a typo

Tuesday , 18, July 2017 12 Comments

Image result for breaking bad season 3You know, all the time, I see a lot of guys on the pulp rev side of the crowd express confusion about what superversive is supposed to be. Some go as far as to say that we’re being inconsistent or don’t have a clear idea. I’ve even seen some say that it’s not possible to judge a work as superversive or not, and that the whole idea is impossible.

Obviously, I don’t think this is true or I wouldn’t be writing this. And to give you an idea of what we mean, I’m going to give as unconventional an example as I possibly can. Something that may make your heads spin when you first read it, but which I’ll try to explain properly.

“Breaking Bad” is superversive.

I can hear the protests now. “Breaking Bad”? The show about the milquetoast chemistry teacher turned murderous drug dealer? The one that ends with (the show ended years ago, let’s forget about spoilers here) the main character lying dead on the ground clutching meth in his hands? The one where one of the only heroic characters on the show, a cop, is killed by insane psychopathic neo-Nazis? THAT “Breaking Bad”?

You got it. That “Breaking Bad”.

The reason “Breaking Bad” is superversive is that it exists in a moral world – not in a world where people are moral, but a world where morals exists. Actions have consequences. Some people are evil, some are good, some choices are immoral, some aren’t. Unlike “Game of Thrones” or even the worse parts of “The Walking Dead”, “Breaking Bad” is very much NOT nihilistic.

Walter’s story is a story about choices. There’s no real one point of no return – at every step of the way there are times he could stop. He didn’t even need to cook meth, but could have humbled himself and taken charity from his former business associates. He could have been honest with Skylar from early on, but chose to continue lying. He could have ended it after getting the money for his treatments, but chooses instead to cook for Gus for a year.

And every decision he makes has long-reaching consequences. He shreds his family apart, he gets his brother-in-law nearly paralyzed, Jesse gets the snot beaten out of him, and more and more people are killed so Walter can continue his power trip. He says the whole thing is for his family, but this is a transparent lie. It’s because Walter, who feels so powerless in other areas of his life, enjoys the power of being the great Heisenberg.

Image result for breaking bad ozymandiasEverything finally comes to a head in the most famous episode of the series, “Ozymandias”. Up until this point Walter has, barely, managed to keep up a double life where he can keep a family and continue cooking, and has become a powerful drug lord. But “Ozymandias” explodes into almost a biblical reckoning as Walter’s whole world is completely torn apart. All of the sins he’s committed over the course of the series – that all of the characters have committed – are visited back upon Walter with a vicious vengeance. Innocent people are killed, almost all of his money is gone, his power is stripped from him, his family turned against him. He is forced into the mountains to hide as a sort of lumberjack, his only human contact monthly visits with a man who barely cares enough to play cards with him for an hour for 10,000 dollars.

The main message of the show essentially amounts to this: Actions have consequences. Looking also at the terrific prequel “Better Call Saul” we see that all of the people who are apart of this world join it because they believe that they’ll be able to reap the rewards while escaping the consequences. They try to be smarter than everyone else, like Walter, or more careful, like Gus, or more slippery, like Saul.

But you can’t do it. And sin has far reaching effects, not just on you, but on the people you love and on the innocents around you.

One of the only good criticisms I’ve seen of the show is that the finale was one episode too far, almost a victory for Walter. He comes up with a way to get the money to his son, gets vengeance on his enemies, and manages to rescue Jessie. He dies cradling his beloved blue meth in his hands.

I think it works when you think of Walter almost as a spirit of vengeance; all of those people who seemed like they’d get away with it – who seemed to escape the consequences – ultimately get their comeuppance well. In that sense the end is fitting; all of the chickens have come home to roost.

“Breaking Bad” has characters who aspire to something bigger and better than themselves, in Hank and even Jessie to an extent. Right and wrong exists in the world of “Breaking Bad”. There is a standard of heroism for multiple characters, a code of ethics they work under; even Walter has one to a limited extent. Actions DEFINITELY matter in the world of “Breaking Bad”, and the work is not subversive; the elements of a healthy culture are not mocked. If anything the show is in some ways about a world where the elements of a healthy culture are not given the respect they deserve.

So, the answer to the question of “Can there be such a thing as a classical superversive tragedy, about the fall of a great man?” (and Walter DID start out as a man with true potential to be a force for good; remember, he was originally a brilliant chemist) is “Yes”. “Breaking Bad” is one such show, and that’s one of the reasons it will be remembered decades from now as one of the greatest shows ever made.

Image result for breaking bad felina

12 Comments
  • Joe F Keenan says:

    Author is correct: Breaking Bad is superversive! I passed on BB when it first aired as I assumed it glorified perverse activity. I did this in spite of my son averring it was awesome; regardless, I remained steadfast in my resolve not to watch BB….I was wrong. By the time I finally got around to watching BB, I was humbled. It is Greek in its complexity, Walter is Agamemnon, a great man brought low by over weening pride. As author points out, it is a very moral story. Nice post!

  • PC Bushi says:

    Interesting take. Can’t wait for the “The Last Kingdom is Superversive” post. 😉

    Seriously, though, Breaking Bad was pretty dark, but perhaps I was able to stand it because it actually had good characters. Walt wasn’t the hero of the show. Hank was.

  • Mike says:

    Excellent points, well argued.

    A similar case can be made for Nurse Jackie, which I highly recommend for many of the same reasons. Funny, tragic, well written, with interesting characters acting in a moral universe where choices matter.

  • Tom says:

    I couldn’t watch past season 3 of the show, but I totally agree with Anthony about this. Breaking Bad was a show where there was right and wrong, and there were the appropriate consequences to those actions.

    The comparisons to Greek tragedy are well placed. Much of the Bible is given over to descriptions of people going down the broad and gently sloping path and of the consequences they suffered as a result.

    (I use the Bible as my standard of superversiveness.)

  • Terry Sanders says:

    Before calling it “superversive,” I would suggest the following experiment:

    Take a random sample of a few hundred fans of the show. Ask each to sum up the show in a few words. Then determine the ratio between the following classes of answer:

    A)
    “A tragic story about the basic futility of evil. All that blood, all that pain, all that death–and in the end it came to nothing.”

    B)
    “Too bad how it ended. But wasn’t he a *badass*? That was SO COOL!!”

    I suspect the ratio of B) to A) will exceed 10, and possibly 100. As the producers intended. Though I am open to dissuasion.

    “False superversive” is a concept fou may not have considered yet, but I suggest you do. I think Hollywood is exceedingly well versed in it.

    • Anthony says:

      I did consider it, quite carefully, which is why I consider it superversive.

      I am unsure of your point. Are you saying that because viewers like watching him be a badass more than they like doing critical analyses that means it doesn’t work as a modern Greek tragedy in a deeply moral world?

      I watched BB myself. It is not “false superversive”, it is, in fact, superversive.

      You’ll need a better rebuttal than “But it COULD be this, too!”

      Sure, it could. But it isn’t.

      • Terry Sanders says:

        I’m hypothesizing (not saying) that you have it backward. That it COULD be superversive, but no significant number of its fans actually saw it that way. And that that was deliberate on its creators’ part.

        Like the gangster movies of the Twenties and Thirties. A veneer–however well crafted–over a deliberate glorification of violence and ruthlessness. The producers knew which messages would be played out in the sandlots by the boys with the stick tommy guns. But if some parent objected, they had a “modern Greek tragedy in a deeply moral world” to shut him up with.

        Same here. I have never heard anyone discuss the tragic moral implications of BREAKING BAD except here. And, oddly enough, in interviews with producers and writers who were explaining how the deeper themes overcame the mere violence and made this a deep and meaningful show.

        Everyone else does t-shirts of Heisenberg’s hat as a symbol of badassery.

        • Anthony says:

          I suggest you read the AV Club reviews, published into a book. Read the comments too. Greek tragedy is bandied about all the time.

          But even if it’s not – again, I’m judging what I see myself.

          • Blume says:

            Which brings us back to the complaint superversive is just what Anthony likes.

          • Anthony says:

            A nonsenaical complaint indeed, given my careful elucidation of what superversive is, including various categories that I have attempted to match with the show directly in an argument; but any stick for a beating, I suppose.

          • Anthony says:

            I get it; I argued with lots of people who really dislike me now and find me rude, but that hardly has anything to do with the argument.

            People really need to give a *reason* they disagree, rather than “It’s possible you are wrong, thus, the concept is nonsensical”.

          • BLUME says:

            But if it only takes one person finding a single superversive element in a story to make said story supervise then isn’t everything superversive?

  • Please give us your valuable comment

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *