Where’s Walter? How the finale of Breaking Bad used your eye
movements to build suspense.
By Dr. Tim J. Smith and Rebecca Nako
WARNING: If you are a fan of Breaking Bad and have not yet
watched the finale do not read on. Spoilers ahead!
So it is all over. The season finale of Breaking Bad has
been eagerly devoured by fans in America and across the world. We now know the
fate of the anti-hero, meth-cook extraordinaire, Walter White and the extended
group of characters both good and evil. The final episode is a masterful end to
an exceptionally crafted series that has always found the perfect balance of
intensity, humour and nuanced plot. It also serves as a wonderful demonstration
of how the loyal Breaking Bad viewers have often been complicit in the creation
of the tension. As Walt’s character develops across the series he becomes a
menacing figure who’s actions are less and less predictable. Unlike some of the
gangster characters he encounters (and usually defeats) he is not prone to
irrational outbursts or sudden violence.
Walt’s menace comes from his intellect and cool planning. We know his actions
are morally wrong but throughout the series we continue to empathise for Walt
and see the action
from
his perspective, rooting for him to succeed. This is perfectly exemplified
in the season finale in which the action builds slowly to an ultra-violent
crescendo in which Walt’s ingenuity triumphs over those who have wronged him
and his family. The slow scenes that build to this climax show us how he first
gets his own back on the Schwartz’s, the couple who he believes profited off his early
ideas, Lydia, Walt’s meth distributor, and then says goodbye to his wife,
Skyler. Each scene is incredibly tense to watch but, unlike most mainstream TV
or Cinema the tension is created by the viewers, not typical cinematic devices.
The action is often framed in shots
that linger on the screen for an uncharacteristically long amount of time for
TV. Hidden within the shot, unbeknownst to either the viewer, the characters or
both, is the menacing figure of Walt. The director is creating tension by
playing a game of ‘Where’s Walter?’ with the viewer.
For example, in the sequence in which Walt confronts Lydia,
Walt seems to appear from nowhere in the café after Todd, the new meth cook
arrives. Walt’s appearance behind Lydia and Todd shocks the audience but not
through a traditional use of sudden cut to close-up or dramatic change in accompanying
music. The shock comes from the viewer surprise that they didn’t notice
him in the scene earlier. However, if we look back at two earlier shots of the café,
Walt can clearly be seen sitting off to the side.
When we first watch this sequence our interest is in Lydia
and her conversation with Todd. Due to physiological limits in what we can
attend to and see at any one moment we have to choose where to fixate in the
scene. By predicting our interest in Lydia, the director (Vince Gilligan, the creator of the series) ensures that our eyes
linger near her and do not locate Walt in the periphery. There are many
techniques for influencing where people fixate in a film, as I have discussed
in length elsewhere
(Smith,
Psychocinematics, 2013) but one
of the strongest is
to make the viewer
want to look somewhere. If the viewer is complicit in their choice of
fixation location they will be even more surprised when it is revealed that
they failed to see something. This is a technique of subtle misdirection that
magicians have used for centuries and we have recently shown can operate in
magic tricks even when visual cues are used to try and force the viewer to look
at the source of the trick
(Smith, Lamont, & Henderson, Perception, in press).
In this scene from Breaking Bad, the director uses this
inattentional
blindness to play with the viewer and reward the active viewer who
discovers Walt before Lydia and Todd do. Along with this episodes
dense
use of back-references to earlier plot points, subtle character cues and symbols
(such as Jesse’s box), this game of hide-and-seek with Walt serves to reward
the committed viewer with a sense of discovery and enrichment of what will be
their final glimpse of this world.
The impact of this knowledge on how people watch this scene
is evident if you record their eye movements. Using a Tobii TX-60 eyetracker, I
recorded the eye movements of two participants watching the café scene. One
participant had never seen Breaking Bad before (Yes, I ruined the whole of
Breaking Bad for her by showing her the finale!). The other participant was an
avid fan who had already watched the finale the night before. If we visualise
their eye movements as red dots on top of the video (see below) we can see how
their eyes and their attention shift across the screen. Each red dot signifies
the location of the viewer’s gaze during one sample of the eyetracker (1/60th
of a second). When the gaze clusters together in one place their eyes are in a
fixation. When the gaze suddenly jumps to a new location they are performing a
saccade.
At the beginning of the clip we can see how both the
experienced (bottom video) and novice viewer (top video) track Lydia’s bag as
she drags it through the café and then saccade up to her body and face once she
sits down in the next shot. If we were to plot the two gaze patterns on top of each other we would see a striking degree of coordination between the two viewers. This synchronisation of attention across viewers is characteristic of how we watch most TV and film. Although we think we are highly idiosyncratic in how we watch a program most of the time the director is ensuring we all look in the same place at the same time as I demonstrated by eyetracking multiple viewers watching
There Will Be Blood here and
here.
After Lydia is seated at the table the camera then cuts across the table to reveal the
rest of the café to Lydia’s left. Immediately following the cut, the
experienced viewer saccades directly to Walt seated in the background. The
novice viewer only looks at that part of the frame once the waiter enters the
shot and blocks our view of Walt. After watching this clip the experienced
viewer stated that he had not known Walt was in this shot until watching the
scene during the experiment. His direct saccade to Walt suggests that knowing
Walt would appear in the scene at some point had primed his attention and made
it easier for him to find him earlier than the novice viewer.
The camera then cuts to Lydia and a series of close-ups of
her face and the Stevia sweetener which will later play a critical role in the
scene. We then cut back to a longer shot of the café in which Walt is now
lurking discretely. At this point both viewers saccade directly to him even though he hasn’t yet moved and the main
action is still taking place in the rear of the shot. Both viewers now know
Walt is present in the scene and about to approach Lydia and Todd who are still
unaware of this presence. This mismatch between what the viewer knows and what
the characters know creates tension about what will happen next.
An even more
impressive use of camera positioning to create tension occurs later in the
episode when we overhear a phone conversation between Skyler and her sister,
Marie. The sequence begins with a slow camera pan across Skyler’s new apartment
as the phone rings and the answerphone picks it up. We see Skyler smoking at
the kitchen table. Our view of the kitchen is complete except for a small patch
occluded by a column at screen centre (image above). The slow pan of the room
and this final long shot suggests that Walt is not in the scene. However, after
several cuts back and forth between Skyler and Marie as Marie informs Skyler of
Walt’s presence in town the viewer begins to get the impression that Walt may
be either coming for Skyler or already be hiding somewhere in the scene. After
Skyler hangs up, the camera cuts back to the earlier long shot and we again see
that the scene is empty. This belief is trashed as the camera slowly moves into
the scene and Walt is revealed behind the column. We were denied knowledge of Walt’s
presence in the scene by the director due to the clever choice of camera
position. The tension we feel after discovering Walt’s presence is due to the
mismatch between what we have known up until that point and what Skyler must
have known all along: Walt is present in the room. What will Walt do next and
why is Skyler hiding his presence from Marie? Our sudden awareness of Walt
creates a flurry of questions and an interest in how the scene develops.
Watching the eye movements of our two participants viewing
this scene reveals the strong influence knowledge of Walt’s presence has on our
experienced viewer’s eye movements. Both viewers begin the scene by saccading
around the apartment, fixating and tracking objects as they are revealed by the
panning camera. As soon as the column behind which Walt is hiding comes into
view the experienced viewer (bottom video) becomes obsessed with this boring
piece of architecture. His gaze dwells on the column and saccades around its
edges, trying to find some evidence of Walt. By comparison, the novice viewer saccades
directly to Skyler and focuses on the phone conversation.
After the conversation finishes and the camera cuts back to
the long-shot (02:19) the experienced viewer immediately saccades to the column
and then saccades back-and-forth between the column and Skyler, waiting for
Walt’s reveal. The novice viewer glances briefly at the column but mostly
concentrates on Skyler. It is only once the camera begins moving in that her
attention to the column increases and finally peaks once she catches a glimpse
of Walt’s jacket sticking out behind the column. The novice viewer is actively
viewing the scene; trying to check that Walt isn’t present given the suspicion
Marie has just created but she can only see what is visibly present in front of
her. The experienced viewer perceives Walt behind the column in the very first
shot due to his memory from previously watching the scene. The experienced
viewer’s gaze interrogates the column seeking out confirmation of Walt’s
presence even though for the majority of the scene all you can see is a bland wood column.
These example scenes demonstrate how film and TV can create suspense
by withholding information from either the viewer (e.g. Walt’s presence in the
kitchen with Skyler), the characters (e.g. Lydia and Todd’s knowledge of Walt’s
presence in the café) or both. Often such suspense is created by not cutting to
a detail that we desperately want to see. However, such techniques can often
appear heavy handed and position the director at odds with the viewer. In the
scenes discussed above the director cleverly plays around with what the viewer
can and cannot see whilst always giving us the impression that we have access
to the full scene. This false belief makes Walt’s eventual reveal all the more
powerful. This is further evidence for why Breaking Bad was such exquisite TV.
*If you are interested in seeing more examples of how our
expectations about a dynamic scene can influence where we look check out my
recent study published in
Perception. This
study used a simple
card
trick to bias participant’s gaze towards one part of the screen whilst the
trick occurred in plain sight elsewhere on the screen.
Eye tracking revealed
that participants completely fail to look at the location of the trick during
the first viewing due to their own belief about what is relevant. During a
second viewing all participants
look in the right place
and see how the trick worked. These findings (and the Breaking Bad examples
above) are completely at odds with most current theories of how attention is
guided in dynamic scenes which state that basic visual features such as motion
guide attention (see my article on the topic
here; Smith & Mital
, JoV, 2013).
** CAVEAT: The two participants tested above may be extreme
examples of how a novice and experienced viewer might watch these sequences and
a full empirical study would require a larger sample of participants in each
group. Effects such as the bias of the experienced viewer’s gaze to the column are
unlikely to be absolute but may prove to be statistically significant if the
gaze was quantified across more
participants. The precision of the eyetracking, the synch of the audio during playback and the image quality is also not adequate for a full
empirical study (hence why the gaze sometimes seems to be offset from objects
in the scene). However, this quick and dirty demonstration allows us to quickly
analyse the scenes whilst the episode is still fresh in people’s minds.