Dexter vs. Breaking Bad

After finally catching up on the eighth season of "Dexter" and the entire series of "Breaking Bad" I have come to a few conclusions about why so many people feel strongly about the endings of both series. Admittedly I may have to involve some spoilers, but I'll do my best not to for those who haven't seen the series finales of either.

Both series follow a main character trying to do right by his family, no matter the definition or blood shed. "Dexter" is the story of a serial killer who works for Miami Metro PD. "Breaking Bad," the story of a chemistry teacher, learning he has cancer, and decides to cook meth to pay for his medical bills. Both are excellent. Or at least were until season six of Dexter. Both follow chilling characters, who are fantastically portrayed by two phenomenal actors (Dexter by Michael C. Hall and Walter White by Bryan Cranston). Both involve anti-heroes, a main character who has some terrible flaw/need/draw that always pulls them back into dark scenarios.

The anti-hero has been a favorite of Americans since film noir was created in the late 30s/early 40s. And it has finally found its place on television at the very least in these two series. One about the redemption of a tortured soul, trying to find happiness (even if he didn't know he wanted it) and one about the decline of a man with cancer who does anything to keep his family safe.

I 100% agree with those saying that "Dexter" did not deserve the ending it received. Unfortunately it felt stale and like the writers just go sick of doing their jobs. Characters weren't acting like themselves, the character arc of Dexter himself was completely ignored. It was like the series wrote itself into a hole. It can't be denied. But, with "Breaking Bad", it was a show, following Walter White, that also wrote itself into a hole. The hole was more well-constructed, but that is most likely due to the inevitability of the entire premise.

One series you root for the main character to find happiness, not feed his need. Finding happiness and a life outside of his need. And the other you spend your time rooting for the main character to protect his family, but no one can deny the fact that most of the pleasure comes from his ability for the insane and calculated nature of his actions.

SPOILER ALERTS FROM HERE ON OUT

Dexter, as a character absolutely deserves a happy ending. Not the damn ending he received. I get that he shouldn't have gotten away scot-free, but that was the point of the show: his redemption. Him killing his sister was the humane thing to do and it is a controversial topic that people don't want to put themselves in. If I were Dexter and had lived the way he had I think the only thing to do in that situation would have been to put her out of her misery. Do you really want one of your loved ones to "live" as a vegetable? Never knowing that you're there? That you care? Why waste the time? I realize it's a tough decision, but think about it for more than a minute. If you keep them alive you're doing it because you're a selfish person. Because you want more "time with them." It's not the same.

However, the absolute ending of "Dexter" in dialogue still fit his character. You learn that his "dark passenger" still exists though it seemed that it didn't by the end. However, the only reason he could make a life with Harrison and Hannah is because they accepted him or who he truly was. Deb couldn't live that way. Until you get one smirk from her in the second to last episode.

Walter White in no way, shape, or form deserved a happy ending. There was nothing in my mind that made me want him to be redeemed. I don't care what other people say. He was compelling to some, but not to me. He just turned into an evil bastard. Season three of Breaking Bad I openly admit that I hated every single character. There was no one I could find believable or likable. But I pushed forward because I had to finish it. And then I did. The ending was very exciting and fit the series, but the ONLY reason for that was because you know that's how the series will end from episode one. You might not know why or how he will die, but you definitely know the only way the series could end by season two.

His family hates him, he doesn't do right by anyone except himself and possibly Jesse. Why do we care about him so much? He's not a good person. At all. I think for all of three episodes did I actually believe he was redeemable. Maybe that's why I delayed watching the series.

Are we as a country that angry that the most pleasure we find in a television show is cathartic? Does everyone really want to just have a reason to injure others and accomplish some dark and deep-seeded goal?

No matter. Both series are incredibly well-made, well-written (for the most part) and well-acted. I will admit that "Dexter" probably should have stopped after the sixth season. It could have, also! There was no clock on the series, nothing really driving Dexter in a time sense. There was always a drive for his character, but the best way to end it was to have him resolve that and no matter the actual end, I think he did finally "kill" his dark passenger.

And as much as "Breaking Bad" fans want more...There was nothing left to write. There was always a ticking clock, which made fans follow it more closely. It felt more real because almost everyone knows someone who has cancer, but no one knows a meth dealer...or a serial killer...

Or do they? (Summing both series up perfectly)

Argo

Movie posters can tell prospective viewers a lot about a movie. They let you know who is in the movie, the tagline, and often give hints to smaller details in the film. What does the poster for Argo tell the average movie-goer? All of the above, but on top of them one thing reigns supreme: Too. Much. Ben. Affleck.

Anyone who is a history buff (or saw a preview) knows that this story revolves around the rescue of six American diplomatic personnel trapped in a hostile Iran. Sorry, that should be rephrased, it revolves around the CIA operation, not the people, which is the major downfall of this film.

Overall, the acting is superb. Special mention to John Goodman and Alan Arkin for stellar performances in their roles. And for the small amount of time we actually get to see the six Americans they are impressive. They really wring out as much empathy as they can with the little screen time. Bryan Cranston has become more and more of a household name again thanks to his time on "Breaking Bad." Fans of his earlier work on "Malcolm in the Middle" may be happy to see a resurgence of his bumbling character Hal save for a few shining moments.

Then there's Mr. Affleck. It's true that his acting is good, excluding the atrocity that was Gigli. But it's also true his directing is better. (See Gone Baby Gone  or The Town and tell me otherwise). Here it becomes a story not about the operation or the six Americans, but rather Affleck parading around on screen, his character lying (and drinking) at every turn. It's certainly not a bad performance, but the one thing about it that really sticks with you is his ability to grow a great beard.

Being based on a true story Argo has a lot of things going against it (familiarity with the plot), but it does a good job of making it all feel novel and exciting. It builds tension well and keeps us on the edge of our seats for a large part of the film. But what good is a rescue plot if you ignore the development of the people who are supposed to be rescued? Exactly what happens in this film: little to no empathy for any of the supporting characters.

I will say that the amount of positive reviews Argo was receiving definitely affected my viewing, but either way I would have walked away feeling like I just sat through 120 minutes of watching Ben Affleck's beard grow while he chases down the necessities for his operation. If you enjoy history (or Affleck) see this movie. Otherwise it can wait until DVD.

6.5/10