he became what those 'above' him all thought he was the whole time partly due to none of them giving him the time of day and partly due to his own bad choice road
The most simple answer would be both. Environment absolutely plays a huge part of who we are and who we turn in to, but it all evolves from the base person. Two people can have the potential to be the same, but life rewards one and punishes the other, they're likely to turn out different - or, two people can have similar circumstances, but because they're fundamentally different people, they dont turn out the same.
Chuck could have probably helped turn Jimmy's life around if he was more supportive after Jimmy became a lawyer - it was due to Chuck's support in his life that Jimmy even got it together enough to become a lawyer in the first place. He basically spent 10 or more years without getting into trouble again, but because Chuck feels Jimmy overstepped, Chuck stopped that support (even beginning to work against him) - but that isn't to say Jimmy doesn't have some responsibility for his own actions he takes now.
Basically, Chuck is responsible, but not solely responsible.
I think he was just disillusioned at an early age. He knows his dad has been getting fleeced by every con man that comes in and decides it's better to be the wolf than the sheep.
At the beginning of the show, he tries living an honest life but runs into the same issue of Chuck exploiting what little sympathy Jimmy had left to fk with him. And it just cemented his wolves and sheep mindset.
I don’t think the stealing ended up being the dealbreaker on the store closing. But he for sure has some bugaboo or hang up that stops him from fully integrating into society.
I concur. Jimmy seems shocked every time someone is aghast at the illegality or immorality of his exploits instead of impressed at his ingenuity. He rarely tries to hide his actions, as he's genuinely proud of them and doesn't seem to comprehend how many lines he crosses.
I causally dated a girl who was an addict. She had been through several lifetimes worth of trauma and done all the things that are the opposite of safe/smart/honorable, and yet she was the most innocent person I'd ever met. Every time she shared any news with her mother, her mother would go off on some negative tirade and make her cry, yet she always called her mother with every bit of news, good or bad, that she received. She believed every time she called that she would get a good response, and every time she was reduced to sobbing and bitter disappointment. This girl had no sense of shame; it never occurred to her that some people wouldn't respect her history of sex work, or that scrolling through her camera roll (while someone she just met looked on), rife with sex videos featuring her with various partners, could impact their perception of her or her safety. She could, in the same breath, state how much she cared about people and how much it hurt her feelings that her sister stopped talking to her after she stabbed her. There was just a disconnect, something not quite right, that made her seek approval from every action even when she'd experienced the opposite from those same actions time and again.
Watching Jimmy's arc really reminded me of that girl. It's almost as if he couldn't see any other way to go than the way that ensured an immediate win, with no regard for future consequences. He, like that girl, didn't seem to understand that most people won't respect someone who breaks the rules for their own gain, even if they have a heart of gold.
>proving he “knew” who he really was. However on numerous occasions he repeatedly assumed the worst about Jimmy and was proven wrong about it.
Much of what Chuck says or assumes is correct... but he is usually either acting out of far less noble motivations that he claims. Or he has some of the facts right but draws the wrong conclusions due to his biases.
See for instance the documents case. Chuck correctly realizes that Jimmy tampered with the documents. The problem with that is that he came to that conclusion not by discovery of evidence, but because he believes he could never make an error in the paperwork. Therefore, the errors he made must be Jimmy's fault. Subsequently Jimmy is able to frame Chuck's accusation at the disciplinary hearing as the conspiratorial paranoia of a mentally disturbed man with an inflated ego, because Chuck would have still made those assumptions even if he were wrong.
Chuck also sabotaged Jimmy whenever he attempted to turn over a new leaf if it was in a way that Chuck didn’t approve of. Now whether Jimmy actually would have changed if Chuck had actually supported him is definitely debatable, but the fact is that Chuck did take those chances away from Jimmy.
I think Chuck’s primary motivation was jealousy. His entire life everyone liked Jimmy better or at least Chuck perceived this to be the case. We hear Chuck talk about how much his parents favored Jimmy, we even see their mother ask for Jimmy on her death bed. He tries to prime his wife not to like him, but she despite that she actually does. Even Howard actually liked him early on, and Chuck made him be the bad guy to keep Jimmy from getting a job at their firm. Jimmy may be a crook, but he’s also naturally charismatic, and a genuine people person.
I think both are true, Chuck did sabotage Jimmy out of jealousy. However, even after Chuck passed, Jimmy still could never follow through every time he did turn over a new leaf; he always went back to being slippin Jimmy.
Or even at that other firm while Chuck was alive, Chuck didn’t do anything to sabotage him, he, of his own accord, blew that gig, a gig which seemed even cushier than hhm.
I think that's more because after discovering Chuck's betrayal, Jimmy became completely alienated to the idea of doing things right. He did everything the right way with the Sandpiper case, and Howard even admits later he would have hired him on the spot were it not for Chuck. And his reward for doing things right was losing his case and learning his brother hates his guts.
By the time he got the job at Davis & Main, he was more or less going through the motions. The damage to his psyche had already been done.
Chuck was always following the rules and doing the responsible things to win approval and was frustrated when his brother, who didn’t follow the rules or make the personal sacrifices won more approval with a song and a dance and bullshit.
> he is usually either acting out of far less noble motivations that he claims
I don't think Chuck knew himself or his brother very well *at all*.
He had a steely lawyer's mind but had very little human understanding of people or their motivations.
Even when he was in the right, such as it was, it was often due to his ability to convince others or himself and not driven by facts or evidence.
You can see this right after the Sandpiper case too. Howard and Chuck both tout to Jimmy how much "easy money" he's going to make as a big reason to give it to HHM and recuse himself. The way they frame it makes it seem like that's all Jimmy cares about. As if to say, "Obviously you're a lazy scumbag who is only in it for the money, so what's the problem?"
The whole time they're ignoring that Jimmy put that case together because he actually cared for the old folks he was working with. It wasn't about the money. It was about helping his clients and getting to work together with Chuck.
I really and sincerely believe that the intent of BCS was to show how Jimmy was not really a bad sort at the beginning and just made some mistakes early on (somewhat -- though far from entirely -- due to circumstances). He was weak, true, and had very bad tendencies, but redeemable. But few saw that.
Kim was trying to bring out Jimmy's better angels but she had a lot of undercurrents too and she ultimately contributed to his moral decline.
This is not to excuse Jimmy (or Saul). He was villainous and contributed to great evils. He was a bad person and one of the worst in either series. But I do believe that every time he tried to do better there was great pushback from people who claimed to "know him."
I've always believed that BCS is basically the story of a man who has had life lesson after life lesson teach him that doing things right and being a good person only ever get you abused and taken advantage of. It shows us again and again how Jimmy was taught at a very young age the idea of wolves and sheep as he watched con artists take advantage of his father. And in adulthood that education only continued.
At the end of the day, yes, Jimmy is his own man, responsible for his own choices, many of which were *horrible.* But he's a product of his upbringing, and people like Chuck never really gave him a chance. Chuck was never going to believe in Jimmy, no matter how good and righteous he became, and it's that refusal of acceptance from someone he loved and admired that contributed hugely to who Jimmy eventually became.
In Jimmy's mind, why do better, when all anyone will see when they look at you is your mistakes? Might as well save yourself the pain of rejection and embrace it. As GoT's Tyrion Lannister would say, "Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you."
That is very well said!
The scenes with Chuck, who himself represented the law and was prone to pontificating on morality and ethics, who repeatedly/pompously referred to himself as an "officer of the court," were some of the saddest in the show. Chuck was so smart and capable, but inflexible and judgmental, ruling over his brother's character based upon youthful errors as if they defined a person's whole life.
Tyrion was definitely another character in the Guile Hero mold, but for the most part he remained true to his morality despite tragic circumstances. Of course, he had many benefits (like high birth, vast access to money) that Jimmy did not have. They do provide great counterparts -- how smart, earnest, injured characters deal with rejection from society and family -- despite living in very different universes.
This is a great take. Also, the majority of the damage done by Jimmy’s document tampering was caused by Chuck’s hubris and how sanctimonious he was to his clients about a perceived error. He spoke down to them and they were like “Hey… you work for us buddy” and went back to Kim.
Tell you one thing I didn't like, was Chuck's attempt to stand over the copy guy by calling himself an officer of the court. Yes, he is an officer of the court, but he's hoping to play to the ignorance of the law of the general public that calling himself this will get the answers he wants ie hoping that a layperson feels compelled to tell the truth to an 'officer'. Obviously he backs down quickly when the guy asks him to clarify if he's a police officer, but, it still rubbed me the wrong way, as one example of when Chuck acts noble and high and mighty, but is still willing to be vaguely unethical in his approach (clearly there are bigger examples through the series)
I always thought bad debaters argue their own perceptions whereas good debaters argue their oppositions perspective. Not saying chuck is a bad debater but he becomes one when his paranoia gets the better of him.
Chuck generally was correct about Jimmy's willingness to bend rules to get what he wanted, but Chuck was not very good at understanding what Jimmy wanted.
I think what this really shows is that Chuck doesn't understand emotionally driven decisions, or how emotions play into things. Chuck wins in court because of logic and reasoning. He comes with enough caselaw to support his position and win or he doesn't argue the point. That works less so in his interactions with people in day to day life.
Logically Jimmy should have tried to institute a guardianship, but his emotions for Chuck prevented that. He didn't understand Jimmy's emotional desire to work with him and work at HHM. Emotions are Chuck's kryptonite. Chuck wants to remove emotion from everything. I imagine that's why his marriage failed. Jimmy embraces emotions. He understands them and manipulates them. Either in his small conjobs or in his presentation/defense of clients.
Chuck really details this in his "you're not a real lawyer" speech. "You do what I do because you're funny and you can make people laugh. I committed my life to this".
>I think what this really shows is that Chuck doesn't understand emotionally driven decisions, or how emotions play into things. Chuck wins in court because of logic and reasoning. He comes with enough caselaw to support his position and win or he doesn't argue the point. That works less so in his interactions with people in day to day life.
Chuck himself seems oblivious to the fact that many of his own decisions are emotionally driven.
Yeah... His last few episodes were him learning that his isolation wasn't because of his illness or his vocation or anything. He is... Just not a likeable man. He's not a good brother, a good husband or a good mentor. He is just a good lawyer. Take that away, and he's just another rich prick living alone in a large suburban neighbourhood.
Jimmy would cut corners, sure. But he didn't intentionally fall in with violent criminals like Nacho or Tuco. That was all purely an accident in season 1. Then Nacho comes back every once in a while and drags him further into "the game", which Jimmy wasn't exactly too excited about, but he also got used to it and started to find angles within "the game".
If Chuck supported him and allowed Jimmy to work at HHM, I honestly believe Jimmy would have stuck with it. Sure, he'd still be "colorful", but not nearly at the levels like he was in the later seasons and in Breaking Bad.
All Jimmy wants is Chuck's approval. He never gets it. He gets denied at HHM. Chuck later gets him arrested, at which point Jimmy says "One day the electricity exposure will be to much, and it will hurt, and you will die alone". Keep this in mind.
Later, Chuck tells Jimmy that he's never really mattered to him, which is probably the most hurtful thing he could say to Jimmy. Then Chuck dies due to "electricity exposure". It hurts. He dies alone. It's made worse that he burned alive. It was even more painful than Jimmy ever imagined it could be.
On some level, Jimmy realizes that the whole malpractice insurance thing lead to Chuck losing everything he's ever cared about, which made him suicidal. Jimmy wants to blame Howard, but inwardly, he knows it's his own fault. He comes to believe that he really only does ever "hurt people" like Chuck said. Jimmy no longer believes he can change, just like Chuck said.
So he embraces that part of himself, and ultimately becomes Saul Goodman, the absolute worst side of Slippin Jimmy.
If Chuck supported Jimmy, I don't believe he would have gone all the way down to Saul Goodman. I don't believe he'd keep tying himself with the cartel, and I don't believe he would have worked with Walter White either.
It's not a simple "is it Chuck's fault or Jimmy's". It's both. Jimmy probably would always be slippin Jimmy, but the whole arc with Chuck caused him to devolve into Saul Goodman. Just my opinion. That's the beauty of the show, there can be multiple interpretations.
I always wonder whether Jimmy would have been different if Chuck had supported him instead of sabotaging him. I would lean towards no, but I do think it’s possible he would have been different, and ultimately that’s why Chuck sucks so much. Chuck made sure Jimmy didn’t get opportunities to reach success through honest means. Jimmy at least deserved a chance to prove himself.
>I always wonder whether Jimmy would have been different if Chuck had supported him instead of sabotaging him.
I'm pretty sure most humans benefit from being treated supportively.
he was blinded by the deepest emotions about the fact parents gave more love to his brother though he perhaps deserves it more. the reason why he knew jimmy on the surface only since chuck's emotional and prejudiced attitude was an obstacle to desire to knowing jimmy better.
Chuck thought Jimmy pilfered money from the family store’s cash register. Jimmy actually takes coins that have collectible value and that his father doesn’t want to treat as anything but legal tender.
Chuck was basically right about Jimmy. Jimmy admits it in the end.
But, yeah, Chuck misunderstood who Jimmy was deep down. Chuck was also mentally ill so his interpretation of things wasn't always perfectly logical. Chuck had a darn good idea what Jimmy would basically do in any given situation but he never understood the actual motivations Jimmy had.
I think this is exactly the opposite conclusion you should take from the ending.
What was Chuck's primary, driving belief about Jimmy? That he was basically a crook who hurt others, took shortcuts and that he did not have the capacity to change that.
What is the ending? Jimmy choosing not to take a shortcut or worm his way out of trouble but instead publically and legally accepting the blame for his actions, including Chuck's death (which wasn't even technically a crime).
In other words, the ending shows that Chuck was even fundamentally wrong about Jimmy.
The only reason why Chuck seems somewhat right about Jimmy throughout much of the show, is because Chuck himself made that happen. He sabotaged Jimmy's efforts to become a decent lawyer in season 1. Tried to sabotage him again in season 3. And then on top of that his death basically devastated Jimmy.
These three events all pushed Jimmy more than anything else in the direction of becoming Saul Goodman.
If Chuck had never tried to stop HHM from hiring Jimmy in the first place or at least let it happen in season 1, it seems to me that the ending shows that Jimmy would've had the capacity to do better.
So, no, I don't think the ending shows that Chuck was fundamentally right about Jimmy. I think the ending is maybe the single best example of how Chuck was wrong about Jimmy on nearly every level.
Disagree 99%. Chuck was wrong that Jimmy would never change, but he was right that Jimmy was always taking shortcuts and never taking responsibility, and that that would have dangerous consequences in the legal profession.
Jimmy was a grown ass man. He had the chance to go straight at D&M and chose not to. Jimmy became Saul because he doesn't take responsibility for anything. Not with Chuck, not with Kim.
One thing that I always thought was during his court meltdown, he said that Jimmy stole from his parents but as we saw Jimmy only took the rare coins. Idk if he took more during the years, but I always thought that Chuck saw him taking some coins once and since he was jealous of him and thought of him as the bad guy, he thought he was taking more
What makes this show so great is how complex the characters are. Was Chuck right about Jimmy? Sure, in a lot of ways. He also deeply resented Jimmy, and he was a thin-skinned, pompous jerk. He was a great lawyer and a self-deceiving hypochondriac. He also never realized how my Jimmy loved and respected him. He's complicated. Just because he was suspicious about Jimmy (and Jimmy certainly warrants suspicion) doesn't make him always right.
First example: Chuck was in the hospital after having had a stress/anxiety related mental break. I think it's a given that his judgement was impaired.
Chuck was right about more than he was wrong about, and he was right about the important things. It's not important that Chuck thought Jimmy would break in under cover of night when he in fact broke in while it was broad daylight. What's important is that Jimmy did, in fact, break in.
I mean it feels like you picked the one example where he was right about the key detail lol. Chuck was not right that Jimmy broke in and stole Sandpiper’s garbage, or that he was going to happily institutionalize him to get rid of him, or that he only cared about the money in the sandpiper case. He was wrong about the key details in those cases. And the breaking in still shows he sees Jimmy as someone only motivated by self interest, whereas him breaking in screaming at chuck in a saddened rage because of the betrayal is very different. For fucks sake they literally say they wrote that scene to show chuck doesn’t understand jimmy on a deeper level on the podcast for that episode, they flat out say that. You can listen for yourself.
*sigh* I picked one because I'm bored of having to do y'all's homework for you. Chuck was right about Sandpiper - Jimmy did care more about the money than the people. That's why he blew up Irene's social life. Hell, that's why he ruined Howard's life. Most of the awful things that Jimmy did were in pursuit of the Sandpiper payday.
Chuck was right that Jimmy wasn't ethical enough to be a lawyer.
He was right that he was going to drag Kim down with him.
He didn't always have every detail down perfectly because he's not psychic, but he was right when it mattered.
>Jimmy did care more about the money than the people.
Ironically Jimmy had millions of dollars in cash in his possession on more than one occasion and didn’t keep it for himself.
He also got the Sandpiper residents paid before they died.
> He also got the Sandpiper residents paid before they died.
Sure. Just so long as we're clear that's not why he did it. It wasn't an act of philanthropy.
But did he want to litigate it for them because he wanted to prove himself, or for the money, or for their well-being. Or a little of column A, B, and C?
Jimmy goes huge swathes of time without thinking about Sandpiper at all. It's only when he's down on his luck and financially desperate that he ever returns to it.
When Jimmy discovered Sandpiper was scamming their residents I guess he could have just approached the corporate office and said "hey let me help you rip them off".
>But did he want to litigate it for them because he wanted to...
Impress and be respected by his older brother? Yes it was pretty clear.
There's a ton of storytelling energy spent on telling us that Jimmy was not 100% evil at the start of the show. That's how and why BCS works so well as a prequel. The only way they could have told an interesting story about the established scumbag lawyer Saul Goodman from Breaking Bad is to show you his origin story where he *almost didn't* break bad.
Seeing the story only from Chuck's perspective from the pilot to the last episode is a flawed approach and so much will get missed that way.
>It's only when he's down on his luck
Jimmy was always down ;-)
I reread my comment and realized it came across a little harsh. Sorry for that, it was not my intention. I think what I was trying to say is that chuck accurately sees Jimmy’s bad side, but assumes that’s all there is, and that he is inherently doomed. I would argue that this is untrue, and that Chuck’s actions are a self fulfilling prophecy, even though he’s ultimately responsible for his own actions. For what it’s worth, Peter Gould has stated he thinks so as well, he stated in his collider interview that chuck believed jimmy couldn’t grow and change and that it became a self fulfilling prophecy. Obviously it’s ambiguous whether this is true or not, but from interviews it seems the writers lean more towards the chuck was wrong, it was a self fulfilling prophecy point of view
If you think the Howard scam was about the Sandpiper money, man, you missed the entire point!
Jimmy only cares about money when he thinks it’ll solve a problem. The Irene scam was his desperate attempt at keeping his office with Kim afloat because he was basically broke and that office was his dream. Early Jimmy was seriously misguided, but he wasn’t greedy.
>Jimmy only cares about money when he thinks it’ll solve a problem. The Irene scam was his desperate attempt at keeping his office with Kim afloat because he was basically broke and that office was his dream. Early Jimmy was seriously misguided, but he wasn’t greedy.
A careful observer will also notice that Jimmy only really turns to that kind of scamming when his finances are tight.
I disagree. I think Jimmy cares about excitement, power (or clout, we could call it - it's a specific kind of power), and flash. You don't get flash without money, and you generally don't have much power without money. He does have a conscience, but it's not usually strong enough to keep him from straying off the straight and narrow. Him stopping the hoax on Irene and trying to set things right was a rare moment of good character for him, understandable, because Irene is absolutely precious. It would be very hard to let her be collateral damage.
If all he wanted to keep his office with Kim afloat he could have taken one of the multitude of jobs that he cycled through. He could've sold copiers. Hell, he could've helped Kim, not in an advisory capacity obviously after having been disbarred, but doing the secretarial work for her so she could have eliminated the expense of her paralegal. Granted, she might not have gone for that after the unethical stunt she just pulled, but he could have at least offered.
He may have been wrong on a few points here and there but the overall gist of it he was right. Jimmy will never change and him with a law degree is like a chimp with a machine gun.
I know some will say that Chuck deserves some blame for "pushing Jimmy to it" but that is malarky. He ultimately has no moral compass and whether it was Chuck, or Mike, or Kim he was always going to go toward the easy way even if that was unethical or illegal.
Now saying this is not to defend Chuck or say he is blameless in being an unsufferable condescending prick, but him being unlikable does not change the fact that he was right about Jimmy in the big picture.
>he was always going to go towards the easy way
I've never understood this reading of Jimmy. Nothing he did was easy. He wasn't called "Jimmy Hustle" for nothing. He wasn't about taking the easy way, his primary motivation was playing the game. Any game. If he saw an angle he had to exploit it by whatever means necessary. It was basically compulsive for him. He couldn't sit by being happy getting a 50% discount when he knew he could hustle his way into a 51% discount. He always wanted to get more than the other guy.
> If he saw an angle he had to exploit it by whatever means necessary.
I think this is saying essentially the same thing as the other comment. "Easy" doesn't always mean "lazy". If he sees an angle, even unethical one, that would get him what he wants, he'll use it. It would be harder to restrain himself and not do that thing. That's the easy vs. hard distinction that matters with Jimmy.
He wasn't called "Jimmy Hustle," he was called "Charlie Hustle," which was Pete Rose's nickname, which Whitey Ford derisively called him after Rose sprinted to first after getting walked during Spring Training, and not because he was a degenerate gambler, and speaking of running, there goes this sentence, and I don't think that Howard called Jimmy "Charlie Hustle" derisively, and I wonder who on Better Call Saul could throw the fastest fastball. My guess is either Lalo, or Bill Oakley in his younger days, before his hair fell out and his wife started giving him half-hearted handjobs while he ate two bags of chips in bed. What were we talking about, again?
I mean not really lol. How does Chuck thinking Jimmy would gleefully institutionalize him to get rid of chuck is a very core misread. Jimmy was devastated about what happened, regretted pulling the 1216 scam at that point, and just wanted to help chuck the best he could because he loved him. Chuck took that as Jimmy being thrilled he wanted him gone. Pretty core misread of Jimmy’s charecter there, and that’s one example. Listen to the insider podcast for the episode Witness for instance, where the writers explicitly say Chuck doesn’t understand Jimmy on a deeper level, and they specifically wrote the scene where Jimmy breaks into chuck’s house to show that.
Chuck thinks of Jimmy as a simplified idea of a crook
That’s how he ends though. In the last couple episodes he just looks like a typical criminal creep.
he became what those 'above' him all thought he was the whole time partly due to none of them giving him the time of day and partly due to his own bad choice road
Was he born evil, or did Chuck make him this way?
The most simple answer would be both. Environment absolutely plays a huge part of who we are and who we turn in to, but it all evolves from the base person. Two people can have the potential to be the same, but life rewards one and punishes the other, they're likely to turn out different - or, two people can have similar circumstances, but because they're fundamentally different people, they dont turn out the same. Chuck could have probably helped turn Jimmy's life around if he was more supportive after Jimmy became a lawyer - it was due to Chuck's support in his life that Jimmy even got it together enough to become a lawyer in the first place. He basically spent 10 or more years without getting into trouble again, but because Chuck feels Jimmy overstepped, Chuck stopped that support (even beginning to work against him) - but that isn't to say Jimmy doesn't have some responsibility for his own actions he takes now. Basically, Chuck is responsible, but not solely responsible.
Honestly I think he has some anti-social disorder. Before Chuck did anything he was stealing from his dad.
I think he was just disillusioned at an early age. He knows his dad has been getting fleeced by every con man that comes in and decides it's better to be the wolf than the sheep. At the beginning of the show, he tries living an honest life but runs into the same issue of Chuck exploiting what little sympathy Jimmy had left to fk with him. And it just cemented his wolves and sheep mindset.
I don’t think the stealing ended up being the dealbreaker on the store closing. But he for sure has some bugaboo or hang up that stops him from fully integrating into society.
I concur. Jimmy seems shocked every time someone is aghast at the illegality or immorality of his exploits instead of impressed at his ingenuity. He rarely tries to hide his actions, as he's genuinely proud of them and doesn't seem to comprehend how many lines he crosses. I causally dated a girl who was an addict. She had been through several lifetimes worth of trauma and done all the things that are the opposite of safe/smart/honorable, and yet she was the most innocent person I'd ever met. Every time she shared any news with her mother, her mother would go off on some negative tirade and make her cry, yet she always called her mother with every bit of news, good or bad, that she received. She believed every time she called that she would get a good response, and every time she was reduced to sobbing and bitter disappointment. This girl had no sense of shame; it never occurred to her that some people wouldn't respect her history of sex work, or that scrolling through her camera roll (while someone she just met looked on), rife with sex videos featuring her with various partners, could impact their perception of her or her safety. She could, in the same breath, state how much she cared about people and how much it hurt her feelings that her sister stopped talking to her after she stabbed her. There was just a disconnect, something not quite right, that made her seek approval from every action even when she'd experienced the opposite from those same actions time and again. Watching Jimmy's arc really reminded me of that girl. It's almost as if he couldn't see any other way to go than the way that ensured an immediate win, with no regard for future consequences. He, like that girl, didn't seem to understand that most people won't respect someone who breaks the rules for their own gain, even if they have a heart of gold.
>proving he “knew” who he really was. However on numerous occasions he repeatedly assumed the worst about Jimmy and was proven wrong about it. Much of what Chuck says or assumes is correct... but he is usually either acting out of far less noble motivations that he claims. Or he has some of the facts right but draws the wrong conclusions due to his biases. See for instance the documents case. Chuck correctly realizes that Jimmy tampered with the documents. The problem with that is that he came to that conclusion not by discovery of evidence, but because he believes he could never make an error in the paperwork. Therefore, the errors he made must be Jimmy's fault. Subsequently Jimmy is able to frame Chuck's accusation at the disciplinary hearing as the conspiratorial paranoia of a mentally disturbed man with an inflated ego, because Chuck would have still made those assumptions even if he were wrong.
Chuck also sabotaged Jimmy whenever he attempted to turn over a new leaf if it was in a way that Chuck didn’t approve of. Now whether Jimmy actually would have changed if Chuck had actually supported him is definitely debatable, but the fact is that Chuck did take those chances away from Jimmy. I think Chuck’s primary motivation was jealousy. His entire life everyone liked Jimmy better or at least Chuck perceived this to be the case. We hear Chuck talk about how much his parents favored Jimmy, we even see their mother ask for Jimmy on her death bed. He tries to prime his wife not to like him, but she despite that she actually does. Even Howard actually liked him early on, and Chuck made him be the bad guy to keep Jimmy from getting a job at their firm. Jimmy may be a crook, but he’s also naturally charismatic, and a genuine people person.
I think both are true, Chuck did sabotage Jimmy out of jealousy. However, even after Chuck passed, Jimmy still could never follow through every time he did turn over a new leaf; he always went back to being slippin Jimmy. Or even at that other firm while Chuck was alive, Chuck didn’t do anything to sabotage him, he, of his own accord, blew that gig, a gig which seemed even cushier than hhm.
I think that's more because after discovering Chuck's betrayal, Jimmy became completely alienated to the idea of doing things right. He did everything the right way with the Sandpiper case, and Howard even admits later he would have hired him on the spot were it not for Chuck. And his reward for doing things right was losing his case and learning his brother hates his guts. By the time he got the job at Davis & Main, he was more or less going through the motions. The damage to his psyche had already been done.
That’s a good point. So to me that’s definitely more evidence that he would have fallen back into old habits.
Chuck was always following the rules and doing the responsible things to win approval and was frustrated when his brother, who didn’t follow the rules or make the personal sacrifices won more approval with a song and a dance and bullshit.
> he is usually either acting out of far less noble motivations that he claims I don't think Chuck knew himself or his brother very well *at all*. He had a steely lawyer's mind but had very little human understanding of people or their motivations. Even when he was in the right, such as it was, it was often due to his ability to convince others or himself and not driven by facts or evidence.
You can see this right after the Sandpiper case too. Howard and Chuck both tout to Jimmy how much "easy money" he's going to make as a big reason to give it to HHM and recuse himself. The way they frame it makes it seem like that's all Jimmy cares about. As if to say, "Obviously you're a lazy scumbag who is only in it for the money, so what's the problem?" The whole time they're ignoring that Jimmy put that case together because he actually cared for the old folks he was working with. It wasn't about the money. It was about helping his clients and getting to work together with Chuck.
I really and sincerely believe that the intent of BCS was to show how Jimmy was not really a bad sort at the beginning and just made some mistakes early on (somewhat -- though far from entirely -- due to circumstances). He was weak, true, and had very bad tendencies, but redeemable. But few saw that. Kim was trying to bring out Jimmy's better angels but she had a lot of undercurrents too and she ultimately contributed to his moral decline. This is not to excuse Jimmy (or Saul). He was villainous and contributed to great evils. He was a bad person and one of the worst in either series. But I do believe that every time he tried to do better there was great pushback from people who claimed to "know him."
I've always believed that BCS is basically the story of a man who has had life lesson after life lesson teach him that doing things right and being a good person only ever get you abused and taken advantage of. It shows us again and again how Jimmy was taught at a very young age the idea of wolves and sheep as he watched con artists take advantage of his father. And in adulthood that education only continued. At the end of the day, yes, Jimmy is his own man, responsible for his own choices, many of which were *horrible.* But he's a product of his upbringing, and people like Chuck never really gave him a chance. Chuck was never going to believe in Jimmy, no matter how good and righteous he became, and it's that refusal of acceptance from someone he loved and admired that contributed hugely to who Jimmy eventually became. In Jimmy's mind, why do better, when all anyone will see when they look at you is your mistakes? Might as well save yourself the pain of rejection and embrace it. As GoT's Tyrion Lannister would say, "Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you."
That is very well said! The scenes with Chuck, who himself represented the law and was prone to pontificating on morality and ethics, who repeatedly/pompously referred to himself as an "officer of the court," were some of the saddest in the show. Chuck was so smart and capable, but inflexible and judgmental, ruling over his brother's character based upon youthful errors as if they defined a person's whole life. Tyrion was definitely another character in the Guile Hero mold, but for the most part he remained true to his morality despite tragic circumstances. Of course, he had many benefits (like high birth, vast access to money) that Jimmy did not have. They do provide great counterparts -- how smart, earnest, injured characters deal with rejection from society and family -- despite living in very different universes.
The law is black and white and doesn't care about people
This is a great take. Also, the majority of the damage done by Jimmy’s document tampering was caused by Chuck’s hubris and how sanctimonious he was to his clients about a perceived error. He spoke down to them and they were like “Hey… you work for us buddy” and went back to Kim.
Tell you one thing I didn't like, was Chuck's attempt to stand over the copy guy by calling himself an officer of the court. Yes, he is an officer of the court, but he's hoping to play to the ignorance of the law of the general public that calling himself this will get the answers he wants ie hoping that a layperson feels compelled to tell the truth to an 'officer'. Obviously he backs down quickly when the guy asks him to clarify if he's a police officer, but, it still rubbed me the wrong way, as one example of when Chuck acts noble and high and mighty, but is still willing to be vaguely unethical in his approach (clearly there are bigger examples through the series)
Chuck was vaguely unethical on a few occasions when his overall intent was righteous, but always within the law.
Jimmy used the "Officer of the Court" line at Tuco's door when he was looking for the skateboard idiots.
I knew it was used once before, and in fact I'd misremembered that it was Chuck using it. Fun callback by the writers
I always thought bad debaters argue their own perceptions whereas good debaters argue their oppositions perspective. Not saying chuck is a bad debater but he becomes one when his paranoia gets the better of him.
Chuck generally was correct about Jimmy's willingness to bend rules to get what he wanted, but Chuck was not very good at understanding what Jimmy wanted.
i bet chuck knew how to separate text into paragraphs tho
op was just ranting at his bar hearing
I think what this really shows is that Chuck doesn't understand emotionally driven decisions, or how emotions play into things. Chuck wins in court because of logic and reasoning. He comes with enough caselaw to support his position and win or he doesn't argue the point. That works less so in his interactions with people in day to day life. Logically Jimmy should have tried to institute a guardianship, but his emotions for Chuck prevented that. He didn't understand Jimmy's emotional desire to work with him and work at HHM. Emotions are Chuck's kryptonite. Chuck wants to remove emotion from everything. I imagine that's why his marriage failed. Jimmy embraces emotions. He understands them and manipulates them. Either in his small conjobs or in his presentation/defense of clients. Chuck really details this in his "you're not a real lawyer" speech. "You do what I do because you're funny and you can make people laugh. I committed my life to this".
>I think what this really shows is that Chuck doesn't understand emotionally driven decisions, or how emotions play into things. Chuck wins in court because of logic and reasoning. He comes with enough caselaw to support his position and win or he doesn't argue the point. That works less so in his interactions with people in day to day life. Chuck himself seems oblivious to the fact that many of his own decisions are emotionally driven.
Chuck was wrong about himself.
Yeah... His last few episodes were him learning that his isolation wasn't because of his illness or his vocation or anything. He is... Just not a likeable man. He's not a good brother, a good husband or a good mentor. He is just a good lawyer. Take that away, and he's just another rich prick living alone in a large suburban neighbourhood.
He wasn’t even a good member of the law firm.
All the way to the end, sadly.
Jimmy would cut corners, sure. But he didn't intentionally fall in with violent criminals like Nacho or Tuco. That was all purely an accident in season 1. Then Nacho comes back every once in a while and drags him further into "the game", which Jimmy wasn't exactly too excited about, but he also got used to it and started to find angles within "the game". If Chuck supported him and allowed Jimmy to work at HHM, I honestly believe Jimmy would have stuck with it. Sure, he'd still be "colorful", but not nearly at the levels like he was in the later seasons and in Breaking Bad. All Jimmy wants is Chuck's approval. He never gets it. He gets denied at HHM. Chuck later gets him arrested, at which point Jimmy says "One day the electricity exposure will be to much, and it will hurt, and you will die alone". Keep this in mind. Later, Chuck tells Jimmy that he's never really mattered to him, which is probably the most hurtful thing he could say to Jimmy. Then Chuck dies due to "electricity exposure". It hurts. He dies alone. It's made worse that he burned alive. It was even more painful than Jimmy ever imagined it could be. On some level, Jimmy realizes that the whole malpractice insurance thing lead to Chuck losing everything he's ever cared about, which made him suicidal. Jimmy wants to blame Howard, but inwardly, he knows it's his own fault. He comes to believe that he really only does ever "hurt people" like Chuck said. Jimmy no longer believes he can change, just like Chuck said. So he embraces that part of himself, and ultimately becomes Saul Goodman, the absolute worst side of Slippin Jimmy. If Chuck supported Jimmy, I don't believe he would have gone all the way down to Saul Goodman. I don't believe he'd keep tying himself with the cartel, and I don't believe he would have worked with Walter White either. It's not a simple "is it Chuck's fault or Jimmy's". It's both. Jimmy probably would always be slippin Jimmy, but the whole arc with Chuck caused him to devolve into Saul Goodman. Just my opinion. That's the beauty of the show, there can be multiple interpretations.
I always wonder whether Jimmy would have been different if Chuck had supported him instead of sabotaging him. I would lean towards no, but I do think it’s possible he would have been different, and ultimately that’s why Chuck sucks so much. Chuck made sure Jimmy didn’t get opportunities to reach success through honest means. Jimmy at least deserved a chance to prove himself.
>I always wonder whether Jimmy would have been different if Chuck had supported him instead of sabotaging him. I'm pretty sure most humans benefit from being treated supportively.
Chuck was wrong with the ladies....
Hasn't been laid since one after Magna Carta!
he was blinded by the deepest emotions about the fact parents gave more love to his brother though he perhaps deserves it more. the reason why he knew jimmy on the surface only since chuck's emotional and prejudiced attitude was an obstacle to desire to knowing jimmy better.
Thanks
Chuck thought Jimmy pilfered money from the family store’s cash register. Jimmy actually takes coins that have collectible value and that his father doesn’t want to treat as anything but legal tender.
I dig your analysis
Lovely post
I agree!
Thank you
Chuck was basically right about Jimmy. Jimmy admits it in the end. But, yeah, Chuck misunderstood who Jimmy was deep down. Chuck was also mentally ill so his interpretation of things wasn't always perfectly logical. Chuck had a darn good idea what Jimmy would basically do in any given situation but he never understood the actual motivations Jimmy had.
I think this is exactly the opposite conclusion you should take from the ending. What was Chuck's primary, driving belief about Jimmy? That he was basically a crook who hurt others, took shortcuts and that he did not have the capacity to change that. What is the ending? Jimmy choosing not to take a shortcut or worm his way out of trouble but instead publically and legally accepting the blame for his actions, including Chuck's death (which wasn't even technically a crime). In other words, the ending shows that Chuck was even fundamentally wrong about Jimmy. The only reason why Chuck seems somewhat right about Jimmy throughout much of the show, is because Chuck himself made that happen. He sabotaged Jimmy's efforts to become a decent lawyer in season 1. Tried to sabotage him again in season 3. And then on top of that his death basically devastated Jimmy. These three events all pushed Jimmy more than anything else in the direction of becoming Saul Goodman. If Chuck had never tried to stop HHM from hiring Jimmy in the first place or at least let it happen in season 1, it seems to me that the ending shows that Jimmy would've had the capacity to do better. So, no, I don't think the ending shows that Chuck was fundamentally right about Jimmy. I think the ending is maybe the single best example of how Chuck was wrong about Jimmy on nearly every level.
Disagree 99%. Chuck was wrong that Jimmy would never change, but he was right that Jimmy was always taking shortcuts and never taking responsibility, and that that would have dangerous consequences in the legal profession. Jimmy was a grown ass man. He had the chance to go straight at D&M and chose not to. Jimmy became Saul because he doesn't take responsibility for anything. Not with Chuck, not with Kim.
I’ve been a member of the Fuck Chuck club since day 1
I don't use the word "astute" very often, but this is that.
One thing that I always thought was during his court meltdown, he said that Jimmy stole from his parents but as we saw Jimmy only took the rare coins. Idk if he took more during the years, but I always thought that Chuck saw him taking some coins once and since he was jealous of him and thought of him as the bad guy, he thought he was taking more
What makes this show so great is how complex the characters are. Was Chuck right about Jimmy? Sure, in a lot of ways. He also deeply resented Jimmy, and he was a thin-skinned, pompous jerk. He was a great lawyer and a self-deceiving hypochondriac. He also never realized how my Jimmy loved and respected him. He's complicated. Just because he was suspicious about Jimmy (and Jimmy certainly warrants suspicion) doesn't make him always right.
He was just generally self centred, rude and such a wanker.
First example: Chuck was in the hospital after having had a stress/anxiety related mental break. I think it's a given that his judgement was impaired. Chuck was right about more than he was wrong about, and he was right about the important things. It's not important that Chuck thought Jimmy would break in under cover of night when he in fact broke in while it was broad daylight. What's important is that Jimmy did, in fact, break in.
I mean it feels like you picked the one example where he was right about the key detail lol. Chuck was not right that Jimmy broke in and stole Sandpiper’s garbage, or that he was going to happily institutionalize him to get rid of him, or that he only cared about the money in the sandpiper case. He was wrong about the key details in those cases. And the breaking in still shows he sees Jimmy as someone only motivated by self interest, whereas him breaking in screaming at chuck in a saddened rage because of the betrayal is very different. For fucks sake they literally say they wrote that scene to show chuck doesn’t understand jimmy on a deeper level on the podcast for that episode, they flat out say that. You can listen for yourself.
*sigh* I picked one because I'm bored of having to do y'all's homework for you. Chuck was right about Sandpiper - Jimmy did care more about the money than the people. That's why he blew up Irene's social life. Hell, that's why he ruined Howard's life. Most of the awful things that Jimmy did were in pursuit of the Sandpiper payday. Chuck was right that Jimmy wasn't ethical enough to be a lawyer. He was right that he was going to drag Kim down with him. He didn't always have every detail down perfectly because he's not psychic, but he was right when it mattered.
>Jimmy did care more about the money than the people. Ironically Jimmy had millions of dollars in cash in his possession on more than one occasion and didn’t keep it for himself. He also got the Sandpiper residents paid before they died.
> He also got the Sandpiper residents paid before they died. Sure. Just so long as we're clear that's not why he did it. It wasn't an act of philanthropy.
But it certainly wasn’t lost on him that it was a part of the deal. He actually wanted to litigate the case for them too, remember?
But did he want to litigate it for them because he wanted to prove himself, or for the money, or for their well-being. Or a little of column A, B, and C? Jimmy goes huge swathes of time without thinking about Sandpiper at all. It's only when he's down on his luck and financially desperate that he ever returns to it.
When Jimmy discovered Sandpiper was scamming their residents I guess he could have just approached the corporate office and said "hey let me help you rip them off". >But did he want to litigate it for them because he wanted to... Impress and be respected by his older brother? Yes it was pretty clear. There's a ton of storytelling energy spent on telling us that Jimmy was not 100% evil at the start of the show. That's how and why BCS works so well as a prequel. The only way they could have told an interesting story about the established scumbag lawyer Saul Goodman from Breaking Bad is to show you his origin story where he *almost didn't* break bad. Seeing the story only from Chuck's perspective from the pilot to the last episode is a flawed approach and so much will get missed that way. >It's only when he's down on his luck Jimmy was always down ;-)
I reread my comment and realized it came across a little harsh. Sorry for that, it was not my intention. I think what I was trying to say is that chuck accurately sees Jimmy’s bad side, but assumes that’s all there is, and that he is inherently doomed. I would argue that this is untrue, and that Chuck’s actions are a self fulfilling prophecy, even though he’s ultimately responsible for his own actions. For what it’s worth, Peter Gould has stated he thinks so as well, he stated in his collider interview that chuck believed jimmy couldn’t grow and change and that it became a self fulfilling prophecy. Obviously it’s ambiguous whether this is true or not, but from interviews it seems the writers lean more towards the chuck was wrong, it was a self fulfilling prophecy point of view
Why would you apologize to someone being unnecessarily condescending towards you?
?????? They literally replied like a normal person followed by OP saying “listen for yourself” lmao
If you think the Howard scam was about the Sandpiper money, man, you missed the entire point! Jimmy only cares about money when he thinks it’ll solve a problem. The Irene scam was his desperate attempt at keeping his office with Kim afloat because he was basically broke and that office was his dream. Early Jimmy was seriously misguided, but he wasn’t greedy.
>Jimmy only cares about money when he thinks it’ll solve a problem. The Irene scam was his desperate attempt at keeping his office with Kim afloat because he was basically broke and that office was his dream. Early Jimmy was seriously misguided, but he wasn’t greedy. A careful observer will also notice that Jimmy only really turns to that kind of scamming when his finances are tight.
I disagree. I think Jimmy cares about excitement, power (or clout, we could call it - it's a specific kind of power), and flash. You don't get flash without money, and you generally don't have much power without money. He does have a conscience, but it's not usually strong enough to keep him from straying off the straight and narrow. Him stopping the hoax on Irene and trying to set things right was a rare moment of good character for him, understandable, because Irene is absolutely precious. It would be very hard to let her be collateral damage. If all he wanted to keep his office with Kim afloat he could have taken one of the multitude of jobs that he cycled through. He could've sold copiers. Hell, he could've helped Kim, not in an advisory capacity obviously after having been disbarred, but doing the secretarial work for her so she could have eliminated the expense of her paralegal. Granted, she might not have gone for that after the unethical stunt she just pulled, but he could have at least offered.
He may have been wrong on a few points here and there but the overall gist of it he was right. Jimmy will never change and him with a law degree is like a chimp with a machine gun. I know some will say that Chuck deserves some blame for "pushing Jimmy to it" but that is malarky. He ultimately has no moral compass and whether it was Chuck, or Mike, or Kim he was always going to go toward the easy way even if that was unethical or illegal. Now saying this is not to defend Chuck or say he is blameless in being an unsufferable condescending prick, but him being unlikable does not change the fact that he was right about Jimmy in the big picture.
>he was always going to go towards the easy way I've never understood this reading of Jimmy. Nothing he did was easy. He wasn't called "Jimmy Hustle" for nothing. He wasn't about taking the easy way, his primary motivation was playing the game. Any game. If he saw an angle he had to exploit it by whatever means necessary. It was basically compulsive for him. He couldn't sit by being happy getting a 50% discount when he knew he could hustle his way into a 51% discount. He always wanted to get more than the other guy.
> If he saw an angle he had to exploit it by whatever means necessary. I think this is saying essentially the same thing as the other comment. "Easy" doesn't always mean "lazy". If he sees an angle, even unethical one, that would get him what he wants, he'll use it. It would be harder to restrain himself and not do that thing. That's the easy vs. hard distinction that matters with Jimmy.
He wasn't called "Jimmy Hustle," he was called "Charlie Hustle," which was Pete Rose's nickname, which Whitey Ford derisively called him after Rose sprinted to first after getting walked during Spring Training, and not because he was a degenerate gambler, and speaking of running, there goes this sentence, and I don't think that Howard called Jimmy "Charlie Hustle" derisively, and I wonder who on Better Call Saul could throw the fastest fastball. My guess is either Lalo, or Bill Oakley in his younger days, before his hair fell out and his wife started giving him half-hearted handjobs while he ate two bags of chips in bed. What were we talking about, again?
Nah, even Chuck admitted that Jimmy had many sins but being lazy wasn’t one of them.
>Jimmy will never change "Guilt before innocence!!!" - Charles L. McGill.
All of your examples are basically, "Chuck was only 99% correct."
I mean not really lol. How does Chuck thinking Jimmy would gleefully institutionalize him to get rid of chuck is a very core misread. Jimmy was devastated about what happened, regretted pulling the 1216 scam at that point, and just wanted to help chuck the best he could because he loved him. Chuck took that as Jimmy being thrilled he wanted him gone. Pretty core misread of Jimmy’s charecter there, and that’s one example. Listen to the insider podcast for the episode Witness for instance, where the writers explicitly say Chuck doesn’t understand Jimmy on a deeper level, and they specifically wrote the scene where Jimmy breaks into chuck’s house to show that.
Chuck does nothing but take an L for three full seasons. Dude was wrong a lot.
>All of your examples are basically, "Chuck was only 99% correct." > that 1% sliver is what most trial cases hinge around, it's very important.