"Better Call Saul" - pre season and Season One Discussion

I was thinking after my last post. Vince Gilligan and writers had a challenge before them. They had a known, to whatever extent, entity in Saul Goodman, basically an attorney who'll take on the cases no other attorney or law firm no one else would want. He was also "a guy who knows a guy" for any situation. Not really a likeable character except he can be funny at times and interesting. So the challenge was "How do we make the audience like this guy?"

They're masters of their craft and they created a character named Jimmy McGill who had been a ne'er do well who we started out finding out what happened to - the manager of a Cinnabon (for consistency with BB). Every week we found out what a nice guy Jimmy was and what a oddball/scoundrel his brother was. So they were successful in creating a character that the audience, for the most part, likes and they can move him on or take this character wherever they want knowing that he'll eventually be introduced to Walter White. They have an open slate now that he's moving on from the the young guy we met at the beginning of season one.

 

I couldn't agree more. I've been a big Bob Odenkirk fan since I saw Mr. Show in the 90s. He more than deserves all the recognition he's getting. He's been behind some of the best comedy (and now drama) of the past quarter century.

I said to my wife during the bingo scene, "that's the Bob Barker microphone!!"

 

Was this also the Gene Rayburn microphone from MATCH GAME?

 

haha, yes! I'm definitely one who did like it - in fact I liked it a LOT. I was really glad they did not go the typical cliffhanger/end of season route.

LOVED Mel Rodriguez as Marco, that was awesome. RIP Marco

 

Very surprised that so many here are essentially embracing Chuck's argument (almost verbatim above).

For me, it was very clear that Jimmy was "all in" on trying to turn over a new leaf. If not for Chuck's betrayal, his whole life obviously would have taken a very different path. But because of his brother's betraying him -- not to mention the cowardly, dishonest way he did it -- Jimmy decides there are two kinds of people in the world: wolves, and wolves in sheep's clothing.

 

I agree completely. Although I enjoyed the whole run of BB, it got very cartoon-y pretty quickly. Of course it did that really well, but BCS is doing something entirely different, and I'm enjoying it a lot more. Really well written, shot, and acted.

 

Interesting idea. I also wonder if Chuck's betrayal was so devastating to Jimmy that he staggered back to his home town, to his prior life, in a daze. He went back to Cicero just because he knew of nowhere else to go while working through his shock, or because it was the easiest decision to make while he was in shock. If his prior life had been working on a dairy farm in Minnesota and teaching Sunday school, it would be a different story (not as interesting as this one).

 

How can you say that Jimmy was "all in"? At the time the series begins, Jimmy had been a member of the bar for at least a year (that's how long Chuck had confined himself at home, right?). In the course of just the several weeks portrayed on the show, Jimmy tried to fake an auto accident, took hush money from someone he knew was a criminal, and staged a publicity stunt that he knew his brother would disapprove of. Who knows what he may have done over the course of the previous year? Jimmy sort of rationalized that he was doing the "right" thing in these cases, but he was just fooling himself. One crisis of conscience, sure, I could see that and still believe someone was "all in," but Jimmy's choices are a pattern. Now, is he a bad guy? I think the show pretty solidly laid out a thesis for the season (if not the series) in the speech that Mike gave the guy who sold the box of pill bottles.

"I've known good criminals and bad cops, bad priests, honorable thieves-you can be on one side of the law or the other, but if you make a deal with somebody, you keep your word. You can go home today with your money and never do this again, but you took something that wasn't yours and you sold it for a profit. You're now a criminal; good one, bad one-that's up to you."

 

He was "all in" at the point he had the opportunity, until the class-action became a debacle and he realized he had been conned by his brother.

Fair point about his choices being a pattern, though.

It must irk Jimmy that Chuck gets away with his swindles and is seen as some kind of hero, while Jimmy just gets judged. I know it irks me!

 

Great discussions. Now I'm kicking myself for deleting each episode off of the dvr after I watched it. I need to go back and watch the whole series again.

 

Lots of episodes are available free streaming at amc's website. Haven't checked lately, but they've been up and available all season.

 

You are right on the mark, in my opinion. Also, Jimmy hired Mike to case the Kettleman's house and break in. He gets s good result for Kim, but he breaks the law to do it.

Yes, Chuck is basically an ungrateful snob, but Jimmy's "straight and narrow"-ness, to the extent he exhibited it, didn't run very deep if it was only ever contingent on Chuck's approval of him. In the final episode, Kim and Hamlin forge a path for Jimmy to achieve legitimate success and he walks away from it. Thus he is no different than Walter White who walks away from the offer of a sweet job at Gray Matter and the better health care it will afford him, and, after he declines that, also refuses the offer of all the money he needs for his cancer treatment.

Thread, this show is about an anti-hero, extra light on the hero. And as much as you or I may end up sympathizing with the main character, he's really no different than Tony Soprano or Walter White. They're all bad guys. The only distinction you can make for Jimmy from those two is that, so far, he's a lighter weight bad guy.

 

I don't think anybody ever suggested that.

 

Sure they have, above someone said that but for Chuck's betrayal, Jimmy was going to be on the right path. This assumes that Jimmy was on the right path when it is at best unclear that he was, and also assumes Jimmy would have played it straight if Chuck had accepted him into HHM, which is also unclear. Jimmy loves short cuts whether they are legal or not. And while Chuck and Hamlin can be di*ks, they're not criminals.

There's a lot of gray in this show. Few characters are going to present as all good or all bad. But, it's still pretty easy to tell what is illegal activity and what isn't.

Anyway I think @minerwerks nailed it when he said Mike lays out the thesis for the show.

 

That is not the same thing as saying Jimmy's "straight-and-narrowness" was contingent on Chuck's approval, which is what you said. Not the same at all!

 

Yes, it is very similar, in my opinion. I simply restate that thought in another way.

We disagree.

 

Really? "Contingent on approval" = "but for betrayal"? You don't see the big difference in those two separate concepts? You don't even see them as separate concepts?

 

Also, the continued parroting of Chuck's "shortcuts" accusation is off-the-mark.

University of American Samoa while he's working at the firm? So what? When else was he supposed to get his degree? It's not like Chuck supports him being anything but mail-room flunkie.

When he was defending the head-sex-trio was he taking shortcuts or was he working his ass off to get the job done?

Jimmy's method is less about shortcuts than it is about problem-solving.

If you want to insist that Jimmy was a born con-man, at least have the decency and honesty to admit that his brother Chuck is an even bigger scam artist and certainly doesn't meet the standards set for Jimmy (and for some reason doesn't have to)

 

I'm not embracing anyONE's argument. I've reached my conclusion from what the series has revealed over its first season run, ie, all the events, not a singular argument.

I'm not really sure how you can think that given all of Jimmy's history, shown in flashbacks, and the stunts he's pulled in show real-time. When you take everything into account, it's clear that Jimmy was trying to be something (hardworking, 100% ethical, honest) that clearly was against his ingrained personality type.

You said it yourself, that he was trying to turn over a new leaf. Leaves only need turning over if you have an established track record to the contrary.

 

Irrespective of one's "established track record" (as if there were any other kind) you can't argue that the desire to turn over a new leaf proves that it is impossible to turn over a new leaf.

 

I'm saying it's against his type. People rarely change who they really are (and the older you get, the harder it becomes). They many make halfhearted attempts to change, but ultimately they end up reverting to their basic instincts and personality. This was Jimmy's trajectory as depicted in season 1.

 

And I'm saying his brother is a chisler in his own way as well, yet manages somehow, so I'm not sure how relevant that perception of Jimmy is. Why isn't Chuck held to the same standard that Jimmy is, especially when Chuck's scams have been going on for years?

I don't know that I would agree that Jimmy's attempts were "halfhearted" either.

 

What exactly are Chuck's swindles, by the way? Chuck did conspire to keep his own brother down - check. You could argue Chuck was conning people with his electromagnetic radiation sensitivity, however there were scenes in the series strictly from Chuck's POV that showed he wasn't pretending (because there was no audience to pretend for). Are we just saying that being a self-important, non-humble, rude jerk is somehow a swindle?

I suppose Chuck has used his position of power to make life difficult for people of lower stature, and that's kind of a swindle. If I take the point and assume that Chuck has his own swindles on a regular basis, there is an interesting contrast to be made with Chuck swindling from a position of power and Jimmy swindling from a position of weakness.

I think Chuck's treatment of his brother was deplorable. Chuck obviously suffered with mental health issues, but this never gave him the perspective and empathy to understand that you shouldn't judge people only on their worst moments. Chuck may have been right or he may have been wrong that Jimmy would take shortcuts and disrespect the legal profession. The important part, dramatically, was his inability to consider both points of view.

 

I might have said this before, but I will actually go so far as to suggest that Jimmy is not a good lawyer. Good at thinking on his feet, good at improvisation and public speaking, sure. The show kind of tricks us into believing that these skills of Jimmy's make him a good lawyer. But is this the right kind of lawyer for a firm such as HHM? As we saw with Kim's handling of the Kettelman case and how Chuck managed the beginnings of the class action suit, most lawyers spend a lot of time making deals and working in offices. The good ones have an encyclopedic knowledge of case law and how it can be applied in different ways. Jimmy might be good in front of a judge or jury, but that wouldn't be the kind of thing he would need to do at HHM. Jimmy thought his hustle would benefit him as a lawyer, but I don't think it really would help in the long run. Unless, of course, you do something like we all know Jimmy will eventually do - work out the problems of clients with morally questionable circumstances.

 

I already covered this. The McGill method is "...it worked because I believed it".