Better Call Saul: The Breaking Bad Antithesis

Better Call Saul delivers what Breaking Bad couldn’t.

Continuing my pursuit of catching up on every television show that has been praised and I never watched for an inexplicable reason, I just finished the now legendary series Better Call Saul. Deliciously sly, overwhelmingly emotional in the most subtle of ways, and a blend of neo-noir and western conventions, I can confidently say that Better Call Saul’s quality is near unattainable for the average show, and even managed to surpass its predecessor in terms of fictional dramatized television. Yes, Better Call Saul is up there with Breaking Bad as one of the greatest Western television shows to ever exist by consistently displaying a level of writing mastery that only the world’s elites could pull off time and time again. Paired with cinematography so unique that shallow rip offs are inevitable, I would be surprised if anyone would not put the prequel series on the same level as the original show. However, despite their shared position in television history, the cultural zeitgeist and the two show’s sharing a continuous universe, they could not be more different in terms of themes.

The iconic episode one monologue in Breaking Bad is a thematic declaration: chemistry isn’t just science, it’s change. In typical Gilligan insightfulness, that dialogue is reflective of the series as a whole, as the following story is one defined by immense internal evolutions. Characters being forced to make a decision between two horrific options to reveal their inner selves is what Breaking Bad is known for. The show, as if I even need to say this, continued to prove the success of a formula that prioritizes showing the inner evil in us all and how it comes to the forefront. In this way, Breaking Bad fits comfortably next to shows such as The Sopranos and The Wire for its morally gray male character and his plummet into immorality being the focus of the show. However, the unintended consequence of this narrative trend was the idealization of these antagonists wearing a mask that says “hero” and their horrific actions. Look no further than the hatred Anna Gunn and her character Skylar White received, and continues to suffer from to this day, for an example of the audiences that grossly misread these cautionary tales of greed, toxic masculinity and deep rooted desires taking over. For the purposes of this article, that is where Breaking Bad stands: as a show defined by immense change through characters taking increasingly immoral actions, and the fans reveling in the resulting evil.

With the popularity of the “evil male protagonist” narrative at an all time high and taking place in the Breaking Bad universe, when Better Call Saul was announced fans were ecstatic for another opportunity to see the worst in people be revealed. Fans were excited to see how Jimmy McGill become Saul Goodman, and the assumed evil he would inevitably partake in to reach that position. What fans expected was another Breaking Bad, a second chance to follow a man to the pits of his humanity, and to love every tension laced second of it. However, what fans received could not be further from the formula Breaking Bad brought back to the mainstream, and in fact, had audiences wishing that Saul Goodman never came to be, that Jimmy McGill stayed where he was, as for the first time in this sub-genre the writers managed to break the satisfying vicarious connection between audience and evil. When the final episode aired, instead of fans blasting the BCS equivalent of “Baby Blue” with a smile on their face, they all thought one thing: Why did it have to end this way?

To be clear, audiences weren’t upset at the road BCS followed. Rather, the writers managed to subvert what audiences thought they wanted to see. Going into season one, fans were eager to watch Jimmy take the wrong path and transform into the sly, selfish Saul Goodman. However, the journey to this destination became not one of vicarious satisfaction from the audience, but one of continued disappointment. It does not take long for the viewer to become linked to the humanity Jimmy possesses. By writing a truly empathetic character surrounded by an emotionally engaging cast, the show whole heartedly frames Jimmy as innocent and his moral descent as dreadful. When Walter White prompts a man to say his name, we rejoice when we hear “Heisenberg.” However, when we first see Jimmy point his finger guns and label himself “Saul Goodman,” viewers cringe from an unexplainable feeling of disappointment. The loss of innocence in a character trying his best to stick to the right path managed to be written where the end point is depressing in a way opposite of Breaking Bad’s, where Walter seemingly achieves every goal he sought out. This subversion is a testament to the writer's genius, as they not only managed to give viewers the opposite of what they thought they wanted and have it work, but make them genuinely care about a man continuously making the wrong choices instead of gaining vicarious satisfaction from an audience stand in. As a result, BCS manages to deliver a thematic message far more effectively than Breaking Bad, as that ending had fans smiling along with Walt in his last breaths despite the series’ themes of selfishness and greed poisoning all things innocent. For all intents and purposes, audiences should hate Walter through and through, but the slippery ending had fans rejoicing rather than contemplating, thereby proving Breaking Bad missed the forest for the trees. Meanwhile, BCS’s careful and meticulous writing pulls off its theme that exists in stark contrast to Breaking Bad: It is never too late to change.

To be clear, BCS is not void of character development. Obviously, we see Jimmy shuffle through a handful of personalities and Kim wading through the murky moral conundrums right along with him. However, this is only due to the careful positioning of the narrative. At the heart of the story is Jimmy’s inability to change, but the show picks up on the instant that he tries. Meaning, the show displays a character going from innocent to cancerous and back around in the final ten minutes for a successful character arc. However, in the scope of Jimmy’s life story, he is ultimately the same man as he started: greedy, half-compassionate slippin’ Jimmy. Characters continually point out the ways in which Jimmy will never change despite his efforts, placing Saul Goodman in stark contrast to the man who epitomizes character evolution, Walter White. Meaning, BCS and Breaking Bad are not only opposites in terms of fan engagement with the characters actions, but also in terms of its themes and the protagonist themselves. While Breaking Bad presents a character we should despise due to his immense change by way of increasingly evil actions, BCS follows an innocent man trying his best to change but unable to do so. It is only in the last episode where this message is somewhat evolved to place a bow on Jimmy’s story. Despite the fact that he had everything lined up for him, only seven years in prison with a pint of ice cream every Friday, Jimmy does the impossible: he changes. In the last minutes of the series finale, Saul reclaims the name of Jimmy McGill when confessing to his crimes to save the woman he loves. The ending then proves that, in stark opposition to Breaking Bad, where Walter accepts there is no recovery from the moral chasm he finds himself in, people can always change. Meaning, Jimmy changes by accepting he can never change and taking the responsibility of that inability.