 |
| Jeff and me, 1954 |
Is it the duty of a any TV show to do such a thing? Is it the duty of a novelist to spell out the consequences of bad deeds? Does a story have the responsibility to address such things?
Monday, December 09, 2013
Was BREAKING BAD negligent in not spending much time on the consequences of drug use?
Is it the duty of a any TV show to do such a thing? Is it the duty of a novelist to spell out the consequences of bad deeds? Does a story have the responsibility to address such things?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
In a word, NO. Art doesn't have to moralize. BREAKING BAD was an accurate deception of the meth business (I'm tempted to use segments of BREAKING BAD) in my MANAGEMENT class.
I meant depiction! I need more coffee before I type.
I agree with George. Not to say the show couldn't have dome what you suggest, but it had no obligation. The show was about Walter's involvement. Another show can depict the consequences, if it chooses. Among the reasons I don't watch much television is too many shows and movies try to touch all the bases, so nothing has the impact it should.
I thought Jesse and the girlfriend- and her father the air traffic controller- depicted this quite well. Part of the point was that Walt could be a monster and not deal with the consequences, and denied culpability until the penultimate episode in the desert. Still thinking he can save his family from his deeds.
I didn't feel that Breaking Bad was a glamorization of either the meth business or meth use. I'd say it was primarily a show about self-delusion.
My friends who have taken up the show rather recently, and who have a friend in prison for meth use and trouble he ran into because of it, find that the moral universe is actually a little too simple and that drug culture is portrayed a little too simplistically. Even though I haven't identified them, I should hasten to say that they are not drug users themselves, so it isn't about self-justification.
No they shouldn't let those druggie freaks be on the TV and they shouldn't have bad people or beards and guns or any of that stuf where childs can see it it's dangerous and bad for them and for everybody so there should only be healthy happy shows like mr Rogers and goos things like that. To much crime already now.
Good grief, no. Imagine GRIFTER'S GAME with a moral added. I shudder to think.
Broadly I agree with other commenters - it's art - it has no duty or obligation to be or do anything.
Personally though I probably do prefer books (or TV shows or movies) that do explore more than one side of their subjects. I haven't watched breaking bad so won't comment on that specifically but here there has been a whole swag of TV shows set in the organised crime world recently and they generally ignore the moral side of things all together which, for me, anyway, makes it all a bit unrealistic and boring.
Post a Comment