Better Call Saul - Season 2 (AMC) (1 Viewer)

[joshEH]

First off..."DON'T" was totally from Gus, right?

Kinda suspected Chuck was going to do something like that, but he also kinda convinced me he really was going off the deep end, there.

Thing is, I didn't think that the recording was a dick move at all -- that's just using Jimmy's own playbook against him, and once again, Jimmy is 100% guilty of what he is confessing to. The opening with their mother's death was the asshole move.

Very possibly the Chuck audio-recording will probably be the impetus that makes Jimmy change his name, and this show really likes to double-down on the Chuck-shenanigans. I mean, it's yet another example of Chuck trying to bring about the proper outcome, per THE LAW™.

But the way he does it just makes you think of him as an asshole. It is interesting that staging a fake retirement and putting a full "woe-is-me" ruse is probably the closest Chuck has ever come to being Jimmy, and pulling an elaborate short-con grift. And I wonder if he even realizes that?

Would Chuck even be allowed to use the recording as evidence in court? I looked up whether New Mexico had a two-party recording consent law (it doesn't), but I also got the impression that both parties need to give consent for a recording to be used in legal proceedings.

So, I don't think this is going to stick to Jimmy in any way, BUT, I do think it might bite Kim in the ass if and when HHM turns over that tape to Mesa Verde.

I don't want to wait another 10 months for this show, dammit.

 

[WillG]

First off..."DON'T" was totally from Gus, right?

Hard to say, it seems a bit obvious to me though. I wonder if Nacho was tailing Mike and discovering his plan. Maybe it was not a coincidence that Nacho was covering Hector the entire time they were outside. Nacho obviously wasn't the one who planted the note on Mike's car but may have been someone sent by Nacho. If Hector is assassinated then a subsequent investigation by the crew very possibly exposes Nacho's side dealings (especially seeing how Mike would be a prime suspect)

But the way he does it just makes you think of him as an asshole. It is interesting that staging a fake retirement and putting a full "woe-is-me" ruse is probably the closest Chuck has ever come to being Jimmy, and pulling an elaborate short-con grift. And I wonder if he even realizes that?

I see it as ironic that Chuck actually pulled the ultimate long con on Jimmy without even knowing it. Remember how in the first episode of the series, Jimmy instantly recognized the con those two skateboarders were pulling? Jimmy wasn't born yesterday obviously but yet it's Chuck's life long commitment to acting ethically which allowed for Jimmy's guard to be down when it came to Chuck. Chuck is literally the last person who he would ever suspect if acting devious.

 

[WillG]

True enough, but none of that is Jimmy's fault. If Chuck resents the ease with which Jimmy glides through life, well that is Chuck's problem and not Jimmy's fault. I'll concede the point about stealing from their father, but the Rebecca liking Jimmy and their mom calling for Jimmy on her death bed are not Jimmy's faults and Chuck is in the wrong for projecting those issues onto Jimmy.

Not a lot of sympathy for Chuck from me. Chuck had an apparently large measure of professional success that some folks would kill for and it left him unfulfilled. That's on him, not Jimmy.

- Walter.

You're right, none of it was Jimmy's (however I would point out that there were posters in the S1 thread that seemed to blame Chuck for putting Jimmy in the road to becoming Saul, which I disagreed with). It's a character flaw of Chuck's but it is one that is very human. Again he's just been dealt probably the biggest (in his mind, anyway) insult and blow to his psyche up to that point. There's also likely just a raw incomprehension at that point "how can my mother love my con artist brother more than me". Again a petty as it seems to hide the last words from Jimmy, u can't say I don't at least partially empathize with Chuck.

 

[joshEH]

“When you’re 99, you can drop dead giving closing arguments to JudgeBot 3000. Which will run on electricity, by the way -- THAT'S your future.”

Sepinwall's finale-review had a great, succinct description of the Jimmy/Chuck dynamic:

To put it simply, Jimmy has made protecting his brother from the world his top priority, while Chuck has chosen to protect the world from his brother at all costs. The show has thoroughly explained why each has come to feel that way, but it's hard not to take the side of the guy whose (fake) name is in the show's title, and who's so damn charming for all of his abundant flaws.

I saw someone on another forum theorize that Chuck uses the recording to force Jimmy into some kind of legally-binding agreement to never practice law again (an agreement he signs...as Jimmy McGill). Jimmy's workaround to this agreement is to change his name and practice law as "Saul Goodman."

If you also watch The Last Man on Earth, it's pretty funny that brothers who shaved each others' pubes and dragged a bed to the edge of a cliff WITH ONE OF THEM IN IT would actually turn out to be the more functional siblings.

 

[joshEH]

Also, in an interview with Sepinwall, the producers are busy working out the final contract-details with Giancarlo Esposito for next season:

http://www.hitfix.com/whats-alan-wa...ont-automatically-expect-to-see-gus-next-year

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

Great insight line from Sepinwall's recap that to me defines why Jimmy is absolutely more sympathetic than Chuck.

"To put it simply, Jimmy has made protecting his brother from the world his top priority, while Chuck has chosen to protect the world from his brother at all costs. The show has thoroughly explained why each has come to feel that way, but it's hard not to take the side of the guy whose (fake) name is in the show's title, and who's so damn charming for all of his abundant flaws."
Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/whats-alan-wa...-into-its-own-in-season-2#hpJJZfHfJKshlfwT.99

There was also nothing remotely altruistic in Chuck withholding their mom's last words to Jimmy. Gilligan clearly intended that to be what it was... the ultimate selfish dick move. Gilligan even explained that scene was shot earlier and saved for the final episode of the season, knowing how it would play in concert with Chuck's con move at the end. Cementing his status as the ultimate selfish of the two.

Ha... Funny that we both posted that quote at the same time. Synchronicity there, Josh.

 

[WillG]

Cementing his status as the ultimate selfish of the two.

This is true. One thing about Jimmy is that he is often very selfless. Of course how he often facilitates these acts of selflessness is suspect.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

The thing I love about BREAKING BAD and BETTER CALL SAUL is the fact that you still think about aspects of an episode long after you have watched it.

I have always loved the way these shows are lensed. We are always presented with an interesting perspective of what is happening on screen.

For example....

When Chuck is being transported in the hospital and subjected to all kinds of prodding. The camera angle is upside down. It's an interesting perspective that makes the viewer feel the emotion of how harrowing this process is for Chuck.

The entire end sequence with Mike looking through the gun scope, seeing his eye through the lens, watching his eyes as he calculates what to do next when his target is blocked -- all the way to the point of someone placing a stick on his horn and a note on his windshield. That entire scene is just brilliantly done.

If you are looking for the ultimate example of what I am trying to say, let's look at the opening scene of this week's episode...

In the recap we are shown Chuck hitting his head on the floor of the copy shop. The next scene opens with Jimmy in a hospital room with his hands over his face, in grief. We think that grief is over Chuck. As the camera pulls back, we see Chuck in a chair next to him. "What the hell is going on?" We then find out this is a flashback.

How many of you were fooled by that scene like I was?

Maybe it's the fact I don't watch a lot of television these days. However, there's just something really brilliant about the way these stories are told --- not just script wise, but through its lensing.

 

[Greg_S_H]

I was fooled. And then I figured it was Chuck's wife.

 

[Carabimero]

To me the recording is still just Jimmy trying to convince Chuck he did it to make Chuck feel better. It doesn't prove anything. Jimmy can always say he was saying it to make Chuck feel better and he had to be convincing or Chuck wouldn't buy it.

 

[TravisR]

I was fooled. And then I figured it was Chuck's wife.

Same here.

To me the recording is still just Jimmy trying to convince Chuck he did it to make Chuck feel better. It doesn't prove anything. Jimmy can always say he was saying it to make Chuck feel better and he had to be convincing or Chuck wouldn't buy it.

The one thing it will do for Chuck is make people wonder about Jimmy. At this point, Hamlin now must really be questioning Chuck's sanity and while Jimmy can say that he was lying for Chuck's benefit, Hamlin won't be 100% convinced by that claim and he will always doubt Jimmy after hearing the tape.

 

[Walter Kittel]

The entire end sequence with Mike looking through the gun scope, seeing his eye through the lens, watching his eyes as he calculates what to do next when his target is blocked -- all the way to the point of someone placing a stick on his horn and a note on his windshield. That entire scene is just brilliantly done.

This. The Mike sequences where he is up to shenanigans are always so creatively shot and edited. Breaking Bad was a visual masterpiece at times and Better Call Saul picks right up from there and has maintained that quality throughout its two year run. One of the best shot shows on television; although I would have a tough time choosing between BCS and Fargo for best cinematography.

The one thing it will do for Chuck is make people wonder about Jimmy. At this point, Hamlin now must really be questioning Chuck's sanity and while Jimmy can say that he was lying for Chuck's benefit, Hamlin won't be 100% convinced by that claim and he will always doubt Jimmy after hearing the tape.

I've been wondering about Chuck's eventual fate and his obsession with Jimmy (Chuck appears to be Ahab to Jimmy's Moby Dick) might ultimately lead to a complete breakdown and commitment to an institute. There might be some doubt at HH&M about Jimmy's version, but Jimmy spins such a good tale that I think most of the doubts will be allayed.

- Walter.

 

[WillG]

How many of you were fooled by that scene like I was?

For a second or two I thought that they were going to do a bit where Jimmy is having an imaginary conversation with Chuck, but then quickly figured it was a flashback.

 

[Charlie Campisi]

Obviously, the tape will be a good weapon for Chuck next season but in the real world, I have to wonder how effective it would be. Jimmy can always say that he was trying to make his mentally ill brother (who was so sick that he had to be placed under an emergency medical guardianship and there's tons of people that could attest to Chuck's bizarre behavior) feel better and he just told him what he wanted to hear because he was afraid of what he might do. I don't know the law but TV has taught me that a tape wouldn't be admissible as evidence of criminal wrongdoing and it couldn't be used to get Jimmy disbarred but Chuck will at least be able to prove to everyone that he was right about Jimmy.

And Travis is right, it would not be admissible in any court, so the drama was strictly artificial theater for theater's

Sorry, just had a chance to watch this. Not sure why you guys feel so strongly it's not admissible. Admissions against self interest by a party are exceptions to the hearsay rule and allowed in court. The two party consent rule to admit recordings made without knowledge is a minority position and only about a dozen states require all parties to consent. IMO, it's definitely admissible. In related news, tv portrayal of law and court is more often than not, wrong.

Very possibly the Chuck audio-recording will probably be the impetus that makes Jimmy change his name, and this show really likes to double-down on the Chuck-shenanigans.

I thought this also, that Jimmy will change his name to Saul because of this. If you get disbarred you just can't change your name and be readmitted to the bar. If the show is right on the law and they want to go in this direction, Jimmy won't get disbarred, but he'll lose all his clients and his reputation now that he's potentially well known because of the commercial. Surely, HHM and the other firm won't allow him to just change his name and put out Better Call Saul commercials without reporting him to the bar, so he somehow keeps his law license.

He'll need to discredit the tape, probably by lying about what he meant and that he did not alter the docs, which he's not above doing but it will need be perjury under oath and that's a new level of lying. Plus, he's got the copy boy and the HHM kid who would also have to perjure themselves to help him. These are real stakes for Jimmy and not theatrical drama.

 

[TravisR]

Sorry, just had a chance to watch this. Not sure why you guys feel so strongly it's not admissible. Admissions against self interest by a party are exceptions to the hearsay rule and allowed in court. The two party consent rule to admit recordings made without knowledge is a minority position and only about a dozen states require all parties to consent. IMO, it's definitely admissible. In related news, tv portrayal of law and court is more often than not, wrong.

Like I said, my knowledge of the law is based on TV so I have no problem believing that I'm wrong about its admissibility. That being said, the confession was given to a man who lives in a house where he's removed all electronic objects because he claims to be suffering from a condition that no doctor can diagnose, is so mentally ill that he had just been under emergency care, had just suddenly retired from his job and Jimmy can easily convince someone that he told his brother what he wanted to hear because he feared for his safety. All that basically makes the tape worthless in a legal proceeding.

Plus, Saul Goodman still has a legal practice so he can't have been disbarred which would most certainly happen if anyone believed Chuck's tape.

 

[joshEH]

Incidentally, this is shaping up to be the first prequel where I'd actually suggest to a n00b that they watch it before the original. Usually, if something is popular enough to get the prequel-treatment, it ends up so reverent and referential that half the beats won't land if you don't like being nudged in the ribs the whole time.

But this show is different.

Now I kinda wish it was possible to go back and watch Breaking Bad with all my previous knowledge of the show wiped from memory. I wonder how different it would be in the Saul-scenes with all the Jimmy-backstory?

 

[Charlie Campisi]

We in this forum have often criticized shows we don't like and used phrases saying the writers "don't have a plan" are "making it up as they go along" or "lazy writing." We often use or overuse these words because we don't like a particular ep.

I think it may be simpler than that. Good writing is good writing, whether it's by plan or made up as they go along. There are lots of different ways to write and there's not a right or wrong, just a product that resonates with a viewer or doesn't or somewhere in between. Why do I say this? On Talking Saul, Gilligan said both Breaking Bad and Talking Saul were made up as they went along. I deleted the ep so don't have the exact quote but he talked about letting he characters grow organically, in part due to how the actors interpreted the roles and in part due to whatever felt right to do next. I'm not saying they didn't have some outline of what they were doing, and they probably had a lot of detail in their heads, but the creative process is in large part... creative. Good writers write well, occasionally they slip up, occasionally they make greatness. BB felt very well planned out to me, so much so that I thought they had to have a plan. But maybe it was just great art.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

We in this forum have often criticized shows we don't like and used phrases saying the writers "don't have a plan" are "making it up as they go along" or "lazy writing." We often use or overuse these words because we don't like a particular ep.

I think it may be simpler than that. Good writing is good writing, whether it's by plan or made up as they go along. There are lots of different ways to write and there's not a right or wrong, just a product that resonates with a viewer or doesn't or somewhere in between. Why do I say this? On Talking Saul, Gilligan said both Breaking Bad and Talking Saul were made up as they went along. I deleted the ep so don't have the exact quote but he talked about letting he characters grow organically, in part due to how the actors interpreted the roles and in part due to whatever felt right to do next. I'm not saying they didn't have some outline of what they were doing, and they probably had a lot of detail in their heads, but the creative process is in large part... creative. Good writers write well, occasionally they slip up, occasionally they make greatness. BB felt very well planned out to me, so much so that I thought they had to have a plan. But maybe it was just great art.

Very well put.

It all starts with writing talent. Shows like Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul could not have endured so well with viewers unless the writer or the writing team had talent.

If these shows were mostly made up as they went along, you really have to admire the writers for keeping everything in proper perspective and not diverting the storyline to the point where viewers became disinterested.

Really have to say, SAUL came to full fruition this season. It's to the point where I would rate it as highly as Breaking Bad. That show is the
benchmark against what I rate everything else. Only THE WIRE has equalled the level of writing of these two shows. However, in the same breathe, I have to admit I don't watch enough television to make a fair comparison.

 

[TravisR]

Plans are vastly overrated and are probably really only of value to fans. It's one thing for writers to have an idea of where they'd like to be and when but if something's not working or a better idea comes along, they'd be fools to not go with that. If it's a show with serialized storytelling, the important thing is knowing when to end. A show like The X-Files (one of my favorite shows ever) made things up as they went along and that basically worked until eventually they were just putting new pieces into their mythology that didn't feel like they had any connection to what came before. Then there's shows like Lost (where they knew the signposts and knew the answer to a mystery when it was introduced but they didn't paint themselves into a corner with a fully fleshed out or detailed plan), The Wire (where they knew a topic and area of the city they wanted to cover each year) or Breaking Bad (where they "made it up as they went along") that worked out better because they knew when to pull the plug.

 

[joshEH]

And most of the time, you tend to hear cries and accusations of, "They didn't even have a plan!!" thrown about kneejerk by people who have absolutely no idea how the Hollywood screenwriting process even works, as if they could've somehow done a better job themselves.

As Travis and Charlie point out, if you lock yourself too deeply in stone before a frame of film is even shot, you lose the vital element of creative spontaneity and flexibility and adaptation that can come from the most unexpected places during production, and which can turn what would've been maybe a good show into a fantastically great one (again, Vince Gilligan's Talking Saul comments about his own staff's writing process are hugely illustrative, here)

Shows like Babylon 5 (with its famous five-year plan) are really the exceptions that prove the rule, as the vast majority of television shows ever made are written purely by the seat of the writing staff's pants, Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul included. The so-called "long-term plan" is pretty much an urban legend in television.

And even B5's own five-year arc got hugely altered by its creator after the departure of its lead actor at the end of its first season. Somehow, for some bizarre reason, the general public has now come to expect a fully-formed, perfectly-realized, years-spanning, intricate Swiss-watch plan for each and every new "epic" television series made nowadays, and yet are still shocked when they learn that this is not quite how the industry actually works.