Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

This scene is why Breaking Bad is the greatest. Jesse tries to cope with his guilt over murdering a person by confessing to killing a “problem dog.” He’s afraid of facing the consequences of his actions, but even more afraid of living in a meaningless universe where he can...

884,158 views • 12 days ago •via X (Twitter)

26 Comments

Matt Walsh's profile picture
Matt Walsh12 days ago

I’ll also note that this scene is far more Christian and conservative than almost anything you’ll find in explicitly “Christian conservative” entertainment. And certainly more artistically competent than anything you’ll find there.

Angry Elephant's profile picture
Angry Elephant12 days ago

Breaking bad is one of my top three favorite shows of all time. There are so many of these small seemingly insignificant scenes that have so much nuanced focus guilt, power, the quest for meaning in our lives, legacy. The combination of the cinematography, the writing and the acting is pure gold

Bumble_Bee's profile picture
Bumble_Bee12 days ago

Rejection of facile self-forgiveness is his last remaining strand of integrity. In a world of Walter Whites.... Men who rationalize atrocities until they feel entirely justified. Jesse is the only one who insists that evil must carry a cost.

Shawn Taylor music's profile picture
Shawn Taylor music12 days ago

If you pay attention to every shot , there are literally no wasted scenes. There's no filler. I don't think you can say that about any show, masterpiece

plebhed's profile picture
plebhed12 days ago

This scene is by far better but i guess i see your point

assholeGianni's profile picture
assholeGianni12 days ago

Wishfully applying a sky daddy made up by humans does not make anything good; it's always bad as all the killings are only because of the sky daddy wish creating tribal kill -at -will crap you claim to hate, .@MattWalshBlog. No more psychological takes from you. STAT!

Jay's profile picture
Jay12 days ago

One of the greatest TV shows ever made alongside The Sopranos, I rewatch both regularly.

Shawn Taylor music's profile picture
Shawn Taylor music12 days ago

To Think originally, Jesse was the digiorno pizza guy

X Ghosted's profile picture
X Ghosted12 days ago

Stipped watching it as there were no characters in it worth rooting for or identifying with. A totally deoressing show.

Lys's profile picture
Lys12 days ago

I've often said that a good litmus test for a good person is if they admire Walter White or Jesse Pinkman. If they say Walter, run. Crazy how many people got Walter tattoos.

Billy's profile picture
Billy12 days ago

Greatest show ever made

j zaura's profile picture
j zaura12 days ago

Watched the first 2 episodes. Boring. Never watched again.

GroyperToPrevail's profile picture
GroyperToPrevail12 days ago

Best show ever

Ena Gill's profile picture
Ena Gill12 days ago

Exactly. Jesse wasn't looking for therapy or self-acceptance - he was looking for accountability, punishment, and redemption. The "problem dog" was really a confession in disguise. Dostoevsky would've understood him perfectly.

JSpears180's profile picture
JSpears18012 days ago

Sopranos is the greatest show ever. Breaking Bad is 2nd

Daniel Rodgers's profile picture
Daniel Rodgers12 days ago

@grok who did Jesse kill, why? Did the writers ever talk about or relate this to Dostoevsky? It seems a compelling angle—see if it holds up

mori's profile picture
mori12 days ago

Jesses struggle highlights the tension between moral accountability and societal acceptance what implications does this have for modern narratives in media

colin🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿's profile picture
colin🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿12 days ago

Still waters run deep

Isaac T's profile picture
Isaac T12 days ago

Jesse’s first scene with this counselor at the rehab is better than this scene and is one of the greatest of the entire series.

David Sault's profile picture
David Sault12 days ago

Yeah, like that's a real personality in the meth drug trade. What a bullshit show this was. Poor casting, poor acting, poor writing. It is the subject that kept it going.

Just Another Dude's profile picture
Just Another Dude12 days ago

Matt finally praised something. Now do Better Call Saul It takes this to next level

pwennerg's profile picture
pwennerg12 days ago

I defenetly need to watch this series. I saw the first episode when it aired. Didn't think to much of it then. After all posting I've seen since I need to reconsider.

Scott Grady's profile picture
Scott Grady12 days ago

Solid

🇺🇸MAGA_Maine_Girl🇺🇸's profile picture
🇺🇸MAGA_Maine_Girl🇺🇸12 days ago

I need to go binge watch Breaking Bad all over again and I'm okay with that.

Highbrow Haze's profile picture
Highbrow Haze12 days ago

damn that's some good acting

Fitzy ¢ent's profile picture
Fitzy ¢ent12 days ago

and they turned a book found in a bathroom into chekhov's gun

Related Videos

Crime and Punishment isn't about a single murder, but the idea that can justify murdering millions. Raskolnikov famously kills a predatory pawnbroker, reasoning that she won't be missed, and he can use her money for the greater good. Strangely, however, he never uses her money. He instead buries it under a rock and forgets it. What was his true motivation then? Later on, you discover he's motivated by a much darker ideology, which he shares in an article titled "On Crime." He argues there are only 2 types of people: 1. Ordinary people: who live by the status quo and obey the law 2. Extraordinary people: who have the strength to break the law He concludes that extraordinary people SHOULD break the law to serve the greater good of humanity… The problem of this ideology is it doesn't justify just one murder, but two, or three, or three thousand, etc. Raskolnikov proves this himself: after murdering the pawnbroker, he then murders her innocent sister, solely for self-preservation. Ultimately, Dostoevsky warns that when man rejects objective morality, not only is murder justified, but moral relativism — taken at scale — can justify mass murder itself. What is brilliant about Crime and Punishment is that the greatest damage to Raskolnikov is not the legal or social consequences that eventually catch up to him. Instead, Raskolnikov's actions destroy him bit-by-bit from the inside. Where Raskolnikov thought that his own superiority would allow him to commit crimes with impunity, he finds that it is the personal cost that actually damages him. Thus Dostoevsky makes a poignant argument that morality is objective. And if we live according to our own will, and to our own ambition, disaster is lurking... --- Athenaeum Podcast Ep. 15: Dostoevsky's Warning to the Modern World w/ Liza Libes

Athenaeum Book Club

57,272 views • 3 months ago

Andrei Tarkovsky on Ingmar Bergman's Shame (1968): "Let us look at Bergman's Shame. The film doesn't contain a single 'actor's piece' for the performer to 'give away' the director's purpose, to play the conception of the persona, his attitude to it, to assess it in relation to the overall idea; and the latter is entirely hidden within the dynamic of the characters' lives, at one with it. The people in the film are crushed by circumstances; they act only in accordance with their situation, to which they themselves are subordinate; they make no attempt to proffer us any idea, any perspective on what is happening, or to draw any conclusion. All of that is left to the film as a whole, to the director's vision. And how superbly it is accomplished! You cannot say in simple terms who amongst them is good or bad. I could never say that von Sydow is a bad man. They are all partly good and partly bad, each in his own way. No judgements are passed, because there is no hint of tendentiousness in any of the actors, and the circumstances of the film are used by the director to explore the human possibilities which they test, and not for a moment in order to illustrate a thesis. Max von Sydow's character is developed with masterly power. He is a very good man; a musician; kind and sensitive. It turns out that he is a coward. But by no means every bold man is a good human being, and cowards are not always scoundrels. Of course, he is weak and irresolute. His wife is far stronger than he, so much so that she can overcome her fear. The hero lacks that strength. He is tormented by his own weakness, vulnerability, lack of resilience; he tries to hide, to cower in a corner, not to see and not to hear; and he does this like a child, naively and with complete sincerity. But when circumstances nevertheless force him to defend himself, he instantly turns into a scoundrel. He loses all that was best in him; but the drama and absurdity of his situation is that as he is now he becomes necessary to his wife, who, in her turn, looks to him for protection and succour instead of despising him as she always had. When he beats her about the face and says 'Get out!' she goes crawling after him. There is something here of the age-old idea of passive good and active evil; but its expression is immensely complex. At the beginning of the film the hero cannot even kill a chicken, but as soon as he has found a way of defending himself he becomes a cruel cynic. He has something of Hamlet: my view is that the Prince of Denmark perishes not as a result of the duel, when he dies physically, but immediately after the 'rat' scene, when he understands how irreversible are those laws of life which have forced him, a man of humanity and intellect, to act like the inferior people who inhabit Elsinore. Von Sydow is now a sinister character, afraid of nothing: he kills; will not raise a finger to save his fellows; pursues only his own interests. The point is that you have to be a person of great integrity to feel fear in the face of the foul necessity to kill and humiliate. And by shedding that fear and apparently acquiring courage, a person in fact loses his spiritual strength and intellectual honesty and parts from his innocence. War is the obvious catalyst for the cruel, anti-human elements in people. Bergman uses the war in this film exactly as he uses the heroine's illness in Through a Glass Darkly: to explore his view of man." — "Sculpting in Time" by Andrei Tarkovsky (translated by Kitty Hunter-Blair, 1987)

RadiantFilm

27,723 views • 8 months ago

Richard Gere is a retard He spouts the platitudes of morons He thinks he’s clever but he’s a simple, basic idiot As I said: a retard We are not all the same Of course we’re all biologically human Our hardware is the same - but the SOFTWARE is different The programming of different cultures creates different outcomes It is racist for Gere to assume everyone thinks like him Islamists have different history, different culture, different myths, a religion with uniquely different ideas - all of which create a different inner universe with different intentions and different actions They don’t want us to all love and hold hands and accept each others differences They don’t want to go to work and come home and walk the dog and have a quiet life They truly believe in Allah They truly believe in jihad They truly believe in Islam’s destiny to dominate the world They truly believe killing non-muslims is a beautiful holy act that will get them into heaven Not everyone is the same Richard Gere is a western supremacist with no empathy He cannot imagine a universe where people don’t think like him and don’t have the same values He cannot imagine a universe where his vision of love is opposed by people of true evil - people who cut off heads and torture and kidnap - saying the name of their God at the point of supreme cruelty The fact that his critique is only on us shows what a racist he is He treats non-westerners like they’re invisible baby people with no agency and no responsibility for the state of the world It is also a deeply masochistic fetish Richard Gere is a retard Krishnan Guru-Murthy ain’t far behind

leekern

27,334 views • 11 months ago