S06.E07: Plan and Execution

[peeayebee]

7 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

Chuck died when his house burned down; whatever the reason. The agony of his death would be up to the griever to imagine. Howard said nothing that Kim or Jimmy should take as "conscious, dying in agony". He never said it; Kim said that. Her entire rant was her anger and guilt, even the part about "rooting thru ashes" to find mementos; Howard never said that. I didn't follow her 'logic' at the time except that she was standing up for Jimmy. Jimmy cared not a wit for the estate settlement and Kim took it upon herself to go. She even ranted about Chuck's letter as if Howard wrote another 'F - U' to Jimmy.

Howard didn't know it, but he was being 'played' as the one to take away Jimmy and Kim's guilt for destroying Chuck's life. Don't forget who did that.

Yes. Kim saw that what Howard said affected Jimmy, who was acting like nothing was wrong -- feeding the fish, laughing, later (the next day?) going on job interviews. His behavior was odd to Kim, and so she blames Howard. Her yelling at him was because she was being protective of Jimmy. So what if Howard didn't tell Rebecca about suicide. He was in a different state of mind. 

I know we've been discussing this over and over, so maybe I got lost, but I don't see the big deal about H telling J about it being a suicide. Of course this upsets Jimmy because he learns that HE is the cause of Chuck's downfall and decision to kill himself. Jimmy's reaction is to act (and over-react) like he's not affected. This puzzles Kim, and so she looks at what Howard said, i.e., suicide. She doesn't know what's really bothering Jimmy.

Re the wheelchair -- It was unnecessary for Howard to use that, but I don't think it would have been of any significance if the meeting went normally, without K&J's shenanigans. I doubt anyone -- not the mediator, not Schweikart -- would have brought it up. It was irrelevant. Howard just wanted to create more sympathy, subliminally, though Irene was such a sweet lady that she really didn't need any more sympathy added on. Maybe Howard did this to make himself more sympathetic. After all, he's the one who wheels her in. He's not a cold-hearted lawyer just in it for the money; he really cares about his clients.

[Bannon]

17 minutes ago, Gobi said:

It is a lie by misrepresentation. How would a jury feel about this testimony:

"Ma'am, we're in court today concerning your billing from Sandpiper. I have here the previously submitted list of all your bills.  I notice that there is no bill for your wheelchair. Was that provided to you free of charge by  Sandpiper?"

"No."

"Did you already have the wheelchair when you moved to Sandpiper?"

"No."

"When did you purchase the wheelchair?"

"I didn't buy it, Mr. Hamlin gave it to me."

There is no reason why Howard would have given her a wheelchair in real life. It's not worth whatever advantage he might hope to gain.

If I was on the jury, I'd think " Why is this jackass asking about why an old lady is using a wheelchair today, and didn't in the past? I've  known a couple dozen old people who start using wheelchairs, at different times. What does that have to do with what Sandpiper billed, and what they were paid for? I hope I'm allowed to award punitive damages!"

[PeterPirate]

32 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Like I said before, "thoughtlessly cruel" is probably a better description.

I suppose.  But I highly doubt anyone here has ever told someone they were "thoughtlessly cruel".  

18 minutes ago, Bannon said:

As I said previously, if someone thinks that a suicide by house fire does not automatically greatly increase the likelihood of a painful death, as opposed to a accidental death by house fire, thus  it isn't very cruel to needlessly tell a sibling that such a death was a suicide, I respectfully disagree.  

It depends on whether the accident victim was conscious or unconscious.  A conscious suicide victim at least has the option of taking alcohol or drugs before setting the fire; a conscious accident victim does not have the opportunity to do so.  

When Jimmy first comes onto the scene the morning after Chuck's death, Kim informs him "Somehow one of the lanterns was knocked over".  Chuck didn't have a pet, so unless a raccoon or such got into the house, he accidentally knocked over the lantern himself, and was therefore conscious.  

Edited May 26, 2022 by PeterPirate

[gallimaufry]

16 minutes ago, Tatum said:

I agree. Kim is not soulless at all. And while she's been grinding viewers' gears for awhile now, I think her turning the car around and blowing off the legal justice meeting to frantically regroup so Howard's orchestrated downfall goes on as planned is completely inconsistent with her character. I get that she is singularly focused and does not like to leave things unfinished, but this whole "equal legal representation for everyone" goal has been her priority for a long time.

And I am not sure I really understand her hatred of Howard. I guess he represents everything she thinks is wrong with the legal system and is basically classism personified, but she has always been principled in her own way and this doesn't track.

What I do think is interesting about Kim is that I do think she has the ability that Jimmy lacks to justify things to herself. She doesn't have to feel guilt that way.

Yes, I think everything is a conscious choice for her: her whole thing is to own your decisions whereas Chuck was absolutely right that Jimmy will do something terrible, feel genuine remorse but then not be able to help himself doing the same thing again.  

Time was, I could buy into her 510 swerve (even though I didn't like it at the time) where I thought we might see a rationale of some description emerging.  It benefits her clients, it focuses Jimmy's mischief on something less destructive than the cartel etc. etc.  But the 606 swerve completely derails that.  It's really clear why Jimmy dislikes Howard but even he says "he doesn't deserve" what they're doing to him but there's nothing like this for Kim - yes, she dislikes him, but to torpedo her dream gig?  

Which leaves the other interpretation which is that it isn't about Howard at all but is simply an addiction to grifting - the "Wine and Roses" take.  But the thing is with that film, there's quite a lot of push and pull along the way between the two characters with them pushing and relapsing.  Again, I come back to the show's internal timeframe because it blows my mind that Kim is only a month or so removed from relative normality.  I guess spiking Lalo's guns may feel like a major step in her confidence but if the halcyon days of Jimmy and Kim's marital scamming is this plot against Howard, I feel a little cheated of some wine and roses.

Somewhere I'm sure they said that the decision to go this way with Kim was a relatively late decision.  I do feel like there's an element of panic that set in late S5 when they realised that the show was ending, had to end just from the point of view of the actors' ages making a prequel series ever-less-sustainable.  But the characters were nowhere near where they needed to be.  So they jumped the tracks with Kim and have tried to smudge it over by saying they want to preserve the character's mystery.  The weird thing is that they constantly have characters question this (Jimmy in 510: "This isn't you"; Huell in 604: "Why you do all this?"; Howard in this episode).  After a while, it feels less like teasing a mystery and more like hanging a hat on a plot hole.

3 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

I found the scene wherein Kim berates Howard.  To help the discussion, here it is:

Frankly, Kim was accurate with her analysis.  Howard didn't tell Rebecca what he told Jimmy and Kim.  

Still, I would not use "cruel" or "despicable" to describe what Howard did, since they connote an intent to do harm, and even Kim acknowledged that Howard spoke because he felt guilty.  My preferred term is "crappy".  

On a slight tangent but I can't believe what a light ride Rebecca gets -- I think she's vile.  She knows Chuck's mentally ill but apparently vacates the scene after 306.  Is there any indication she checked in?  Any indication that she really tried other than a forlorn visit in 306?  Any letters?  Does she reach out to Howard to establish a care plan?  You know if she had Jimmy's gumption, she'd have arranged a whole orchestra to serenade Chuck out.

But instead, she slinks off and lays into Jimmy for not standing by his brother -- when Jimmy looked after him thanklessly for years while she was oblivious.  I can understand that obliviousness to some extent as Chuck is good at hiding his vulnerabilities but in court she watched an absolute demonstration that Jimmy was at the heart of Chuck's condition -- and yet, she still wanted to guilt Jimmy into "doing right" by Chuck, despite being the one person that would almost certainly make Chuck worse.  

In no way is that about what's right for Chuck, or even what's morally right in the absolute.  It's about absolving herself of the need to take any responsibility by passing the buck on.  (For that matter, Jimmy was Chuck's family and if she had any loyalty to Chuck, she might well have been concerned enough to follow up with Jimmy too.) 

Of course, you could argue that she bears no responsibility for a man she divorced -- okay, fine, but by the same token why should Jimmy bear responsibility for a family member he's decided to disown? She at least at one time had made a legal commitment to Chuck; Jimmy had been screwed over by Chuck at every turn.  And it seems clear that the divorce was on some level intermeshed with the development of his condition.

She has no real logistical issues to putting her money where her mouth is.

Money?  She divorced a senior law partner.

Career?  She's a musician who works internationally which doesn't seem very faddy -- besides, surely many people take career breaks to care for sick relatives.  

Time?  Well, if she paused her career, she'd have plenty of time.

Of course, I understand why she would want to walk away - she doesn't, technically, owe Chuck anything.  But if that's what you're doing, own it and shut up.

Instead, she's an absolute hypocrite who expects Jimmy to bear the burdens of her bleeding heart.

[Bannon]

1 minute ago, peeayebee said:

Yes. Kim saw that what Howard said affected Jimmy, who was acting like nothing was wrong -- feeding the fish, laughing, later (the next day?) going on job interviews. His behavior was odd to Kim, and so she blames Howard. Her yelling at him was because she was being protective of Jimmy. So what if Howard didn't tell Rebecca about suicide. He was in a different state of mind. 

I know we've been discussing this over and over, so maybe I got lost, but I don't see the big deal about H telling J about it being a suicide. Of course this upsets Jimmy because he learns that HE is the cause of Chuck's downfall and decision to kill himself. Jimmy's reaction is to act (and over-react) like he's not affected. This puzzles Kim, and so she looks at what Howard said, i.e., suicide. She doesn't know what's really bothering Jimmy.

Re the wheelchair -- It was unnecessary for Howard to use that, but I don't think it would have been of any significance if the meeting went normally, without K&J's shenanigans. I doubt anyone -- not the mediator, not Schweikart -- would have brought it up. It was irrelevant. Howard just wanted to create more sympathy, subliminally, though Irene was such a sweet lady that she really didn't need any more sympathy added on. Maybe Howard did this to make himself more sympathetic. After all, he's the one who wheels her in. He's not a cold-hearted lawyer just in it for the money; he really cares about his clients.

For the life of me, I cannot conceive of EVER, under any circumstances, telling the sibling of a deceased person that the death was a suicide, not an accident. It seems so obvious to me that it is a needlessly cruel thing to do. This is one of those instances where I'm completely flummoxed, and incapable of seeing the other point of view.

[Gobi]

9 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

But Spooge never uses soap and never wears a tie 😁. Why isn't cleaning up not an attempt to sway the Jury with non evidence?

Judges expect a certain amount of decorum. A judge would be more upset at Spooge showing up in his natural state than by him cleaning up. Cleaning up is not the same as pretending to have a disability. Many lawyers (I think even Saul/Jimmy did this) keep dress suits on hand for clients.

Cleaning up can backfire, though. I know of a case where a teenager showed up in municipal court in a full dress Marine uniform saying that he had turned his life around. The Judge asked him where he did basic training and he responded “Uh, Paradise Island”. It did not end well.

[Gobi]

8 minutes ago, Bannon said:

If I was on the jury, I'd think " Why is this jackass asking about why an old lady is using a wheelchair today, and didn't in the past? I've  known a couple dozen old people who start using wheelchairs, at different times. What does that have to do with what Sandpiper billed, and what they were paid for? I hope I'm allowed to award punitive damages!"

Really? In a case about billing a juror would wonder why she was being questioned about being billed for a wheelchair? And would think that punitive damages were in order because her attorney gave her a wheelchair she didn’t need?

[Bannon]

10 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

I suppose.  But I highly doubt anyone here has ever told someone they were "thoughtlessly cruel".  

It depends on whether the accident victim was conscious or unconscious.  A conscious suicide victim at least has the option of taking alcohol or drugs before setting the fire; a conscious accident victim does not have the opportunity to do so.  

When Jimmy first comes onto the scene the morning after Chuck's death, Kim informs him "Somehow one of the lanterns was knocked over".  Chuck didn't have a pet, so unless a raccoon or such got into the house, he accidentally knocked over the lantern himself, and was therefore conscious.  

A stack of newspapers is not a stable platform. They shift.  A once very careful person in the depths of mental illness may no longer be careful, and start putting lanterns on unstable platforms. Allowing them to topple while the person sleeps.

[peeayebee]

2 minutes ago, Bannon said:

For the life of me, I cannot conceive of EVER, under any circumstances, telling the sibling of a deceased person that the death was a suicide, not an accident. It seems so obvious to me that it is a needlessly cruel thing to do. This is one of those instances where I'm completely flummoxed, and incapable of seeing the other point of view.

I really am trying to see your POV. Maybe it's because I tend to want the truth even if it's painful. If my sister died, and later I was told she had committed suicide, I would be saddened even more because I would wonder about her demons and what drove her to do this and wonder what I could have done to prevent it, but I wouldn't think the deliverer of this news was being cruel. 

Maybe this has to do with how each one of us feels about suicide.

[Bannon]

4 minutes ago, Gobi said:

Really? In a case about billing a juror would wonder why she was being questioned about being billed for a wheelchair? And would think that punitive damages were in order because her attorney gave her a wheelchair she didn’t need?

I'd correctly, and with 100% accuracy, conclude that the fact that an elderly person started using a wheelchair today, or in the very recent past, has absolutely zero to do with whether Sandpiper engaged in fraudulent billing practices. I'd be annoyed at at a lawyer wasting my time with irrelevancies, and start thinking about my available options in responding to the parties that did that.

[Bannon]

36 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

I really am trying to see your POV. Maybe it's because I tend to want the truth even if it's painful. If my sister died, and later I was told she had committed suicide, I would be saddened even more because I would wonder about her demons and what drove her to do this and wonder what I could have done to prevent it, but I wouldn't think the deliverer of this news was being cruel. 

Maybe this has to do with how each one of us feels about suicide.

Why on earth is it not cruel to deliver news that saddens people even more, with absolutely no benefit to be obtained, other than some abstract desire for "truth" despite the "truth" having absolutely zero utility to the person who hears it? 

(edit). To add on, this reminds me of instances I've seen, where after a husband or wife has died,  people have thought it important to tell a grieving spouse the truth about the deceased having had an affair during their married life.

There are instances when the truth is monumentally overrated.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Bannon

[Eulipian 5k]

32 minutes ago, Bannon said:

A stack of newspapers is not a stable platform. They shift.  A once very careful person in the depths of mental illness may no longer be careful, and start putting lanterns on unstable platforms. Allowing them to topple while the person sleeps.

IIRC J/K used that exact argument in their defense case. They used Mike's pictures to make that point.

[Eulipian 5k]

27 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Why on earth is it not cruel to deliver news that saddens people even more, with absolutely no benefit to be obtained, other than some abstract desire for "truth" despite the "truth" having absolutely zero utility to the person who hears it?

The motto of every philandering husband. "Honey, it wuzent me!"

[Bannon]

4 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

The motto of every philandering husband. "Honey, it wuzent me!"

?

[sistermagpie]

41 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

I really am trying to see your POV. Maybe it's because I tend to want the truth even if it's painful. If my sister died, and later I was told she had committed suicide, I would be saddened even more because I would wonder about her demons and what drove her to do this and wonder what I could have done to prevent it, but I wouldn't think the deliverer of this news was being cruel. 

Maybe this has to do with how each one of us feels about suicide.

32 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Why on earth is it not cruel to deliver news that saddens people even more, with absolutely no benefit to be obtained, other than some abstract desire for "truth" despite the "truth" having absolutely zero utility to the person who hears it? 

Also, there's a difference between someone asking how their brother died and wanting the truth and what happened there, which was Howard telling Jimmy Chuck committed suicide because Howard wanted to talk about feeling guilty. I haven't watched the scene in a long time, but I seem to remember that my reaction was to think the most painful part was that Howard had told Jimmy that Chuck had committed suicide at all. Howard's whole speech about how he'd driven him to it actually applied to Jimmy. 

Knowing Jimmy, I think we can say pretty confidently that he would much rather go on his merry way thinking Chuck's lantern was placed badly and tipped over, suffocating Chuck in his sleep. 

[Eulipian 5k]

3 minutes ago, Bannon said:

?

A former Radio Talk Show Psychologist used to say never confess to an affair, it only eases your own guilt and saddens the spouse. Take the guilty feeling to your grave. IFT.

[scenario]

49 minutes ago, Bannon said:

A stack of newspapers is not a stable platform. They shift.  A once very careful person in the depths of mental illness may no longer be careful, and start putting lanterns on unstable platforms. Allowing them to topple while the person sleeps.

A couple of nights ago a pan fell from one of my cabinets in the middle of the night breaking a glass which was sitting on the counter below it in the middle of the night. I was sound asleep at the time. 

Something similar could have happened to Chuck. A lantern which had been sitting there for months slowly moved and fell off a table. 

[Eulipian 5k]

10 hours ago, Lonesome Rhodes said:

Now that he has "openly" declared himself to be in ABQ, he also opens himself up to being hit.  Who would be capable of such a thing?  Eladio.  Why would he do it?  Because he should now know he can not control Lalo.  At some point, Lalo would be coming for him.

Didn't Gus say it was Bolsa who tried to rob Jimmy in the desert because "he thought he was helping us"? Bolsa isn't on team Salamanca either. IIRC.

[Bannon]

35 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

A former Radio Talk Show Psychologist used to say never confess to an affair, it only eases your own guilt and saddens the spouse. Take the guilty feeling to your grave. IFT.

Oh, I think there is a lot to say for that. Lots of people confess to wrongful behavior for entirely selfish reasons, when there is zero chance that the confession will do any good for anyone else.

[JudyObscure]

2 hours ago, gallimaufry said:

On a slight tangent but I can't believe what a light ride Rebecca gets -- I think she's vile.  She knows Chuck's mentally ill but apparently vacates the scene after 306.  Is there any indication she checked in?  Any indication that she really tried other than a forlorn visit in 306?  Any letters?  Does she reach out to Howard to establish a care plan?  You know if she had Jimmy's gumption, she'd have arranged a whole orchestra to serenade Chuck out.

But instead, she slinks off and lays into Jimmy for not standing by his brother -- when Jimmy looked after him thanklessly for years while she was oblivious.  I can understand that obliviousness to some extent as Chuck is good at hiding his vulnerabilities but in court she watched an absolute demonstration that Jimmy was at the heart of Chuck's condition -- and yet, she still wanted to guilt Jimmy into "doing right" by Chuck, despite being the one person that would almost certainly make Chuck worse.  

In no way is that about what's right for Chuck, or even what's morally right in the absolute.  It's about absolving herself of the need to take any responsibility by passing the buck on.  (For that matter, Jimmy was Chuck's family and if she had any loyalty to Chuck, she might well have been concerned enough to follow up with Jimmy too.) 

Of course, you could argue that she bears no responsibility for a man she divorced -- okay, fine, but by the same token why should Jimmy bear responsibility for a family member he's decided to disown? She at least at one time had made a legal commitment to Chuck; Jimmy had been screwed over by Chuck at every turn.  And it seems clear that the divorce was on some level intermeshed with the development of his condition.

She has no real logistical issues to putting her money where her mouth is.

Money?  She divorced a senior law partner.

Career?  She's a musician who works internationally which doesn't seem very faddy -- besides, surely many people take career breaks to care for sick relatives.  

Time?  Well, if she paused her career, she'd have plenty of time.

Of course, I understand why she would want to walk away - she doesn't, technically, owe Chuck anything.  But if that's what you're doing, own it and shut up.

Instead, she's an absolute hypocrite who expects Jimmy to bear the burdens of her bleeding heart.

Plus she whips out her phone at the dinner table and starts blabbing in a loud voice! Chuck was my hero with that phone.

[SimplexFish]

3 hours ago, monagatuna said:

It was a stroke of genius to hear "[the effects] will really depend on how sensitive you are to caffeine" after we saw that Howard prefers tea to coffee. Sure, tea can have caffeine, but usually in lower doses than coffee--and there's a good chance Howard prefers chamomile himself. 

That drug must've been really uncomfortable to Howard. I used to take half a dose of 12-hour energy during bar exam study, and its effects scared the bejesus out of me.

Yup...Howard only drank caffeine free Chamomile.

Edited May 26, 2022 by SimplexFish

[sunbum51]

On 5/24/2022 at 4:44 PM, Penman61 said:

Right, and remember a very un-Kim-like hot pink thong was pulled off the tub faucet. 

I think they also show a rack of women's clothing - it looked like a cheetah print sweater at the end of the rack - and between that and the pink thong, they kind of remind me of things Kim's mom would wear -- like mother, like daughter? or Kim disguised as/becomes her mom?

Edited May 27, 2022 by sunbum51
forgot a word

[Eulipian 5k]

4 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

we can say pretty confidently that he would much rather go on his merry way thinking Chuck's lantern was placed badly and tipped over, suffocating Chuck in his sleep. 

But if Jimmy found out  Chuck committed suicide because his life was ruined, that would be the truth though?

[sistermagpie]

9 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

But if Jimmy found out  Chuck committed suicide because his life was ruined, that would be the truth though?

You mean did Chuck commit suicide because his life was ruined? I think that's complicated. I wouldn't say his life was ruined, exactly, but I think he couldn't live with the humiliation and wanted to hurt Jimmy with his death.

[Starchild]

I thought it was more along the lines of giving up. I don't feel he was thinking specifically about hurting Jimmy, but that he felt Jimmy had wounded him. Fatally. No point going on.

[PeterPirate]

Courtney's review of this episode.  She made some very good predictions in previous videos, and also talks about parallels between the episode and events in BB.  

Note to self:  Post Courtney's predictions and pretend they're mine.  

Edited May 28, 2022 by PeterPirate

[peeayebee]

I also was reminded of Vertigo with that shot of Howard doing up the stairs. I was going to post about it, but I changed my mind for some reason.

[Eulipian 5k]

Chuck's life was ruined just as Howard's was. By the same 2 criminal lawyers:

• Professional reputation damaged.
• Jimmy put one over at his expense... again!
• His wife saw him brought low; he only, and really cares, for Rebecca's devotion/admiration

The same applies to Howard.

[gallimaufry]

I don't think the professional humiliation really touched Chuck.  Sure, it hurt him, but it wasn't critical.  Chuck was fine immediately after losing HHM.  You can actually see his diary in "Lantern" and he identifies the pain felt in the two days leading prior to his change.  Also note that the healthiest he is for the whole show are the weeks after the bar hearing during which he knows that professional repercussions are possible and even during the time when he's battling with Howard.  There's a bit of play acting necessary with Howard but unlike with Rebecca, it's not a complete fabrication: he just needs to use his strategies to ground himself.  It's after Jimmy's arrival that his emotional state keeps spiking upwards: with no pressure valve for that pain, it vents into delusion and he's subsumed by it.

My interpretation is that if Jimmy had kept away, Chuck wouldn't have died at that point and may have been able to rebuild his life sufficiently and maintain his therapy to the point where relapse episodes could be avoided or at least mitigated.

I'm not sure Howard's life was "ruined" either.  The firm would have done very well in the short-term thanks to the settlement which would have smoothed things over with the board.  His doctor would have cleared him of having drugs in his system and his friends and colleagues are largely quite loyal it seems.  It would be humiliating and might cost him business over the long-term but he's come back from worse as he himself admitted.  Kim and Jimmy weren't wrong that he had shoulders broad enough to absorb what they were doing.  The problem with their plan wasn't that it was intrinsically a bad plan if there was some kind of utilitarian rationale -- that they desperately needed seed money for the pro bono work.  The problem was that it was unnecessary (Jimmy literally has $100k in cash lying around and business is booming), counterproductive to everything they say they want (Kim ignored the opportunity Cliff offered to get something bigger going) and utterly spiteful.

I think it's interesting to compare Chuck's death with Howard's and Nacho's.  With Chuck, you had the sense that the whole world was different as a result of his death and, let's face it, his character arc had really played itself through pretty fully.  With Nacho and Howard, it feels like they just ran out of road and were out of time so they shuffled them off.  I guess we'll see in the back six but I'm not sure how deeply their deaths are likely to resonate -- I think I'm right that Nacho hasn't been mentioned since.

And for Howard, it does feel like basically the same territory that was covered with Chuck - a death where Jimmy has some culpability but can't reasonably have been expected to foresee how things would turn out.  I can't help but feel that if this show were able to go onto seasons 7 and 8, we'd instead have seen Howard go on, trying to take on Saul with Saul having to at least consider Belize-like solutions -- however, since that's not happening, they needed a quick exit hatch.  I think one of the things I find disappointing is that for all the chaos Jimmy has sewn, we've yet to see any robust, coherent case against him -- Chuck's was narrow entrapment rather than a comprehensive deconstruction of his behaviour.  In BB, we did ultimately get the satisfaction of watching Hank piece everything together.  I guess there's hint that Ericsson and perhaps Cliff might pursue this but it's late in the day for that and they're tertiary characters -- surely this role should have been Howard's.

[sistermagpie]

14 hours ago, Starchild said:

I thought it was more along the lines of giving up. I don't feel he was thinking specifically about hurting Jimmy, but that he felt Jimmy had wounded him. Fatally. No point going on.

Yes, I agree. I don't mean to say that hurting Jimmy was his sole intention, but I think Jimmy's reaction certainly crossed his mind. How could it not, after all?

[SimplexFish]

13 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Yes, I agree. I don't mean to say that hurting Jimmy was his sole intention, but I think Jimmy's reaction certainly crossed his mind. How could it not, after all?

This is the best explanation to me as well...

[Alexander Pope]

On 5/24/2022 at 5:47 AM, JudyObscure said:

I was surprised to see Saul and Kim watching a comedy like, "Born Yesterday," while they savored their success because, so far, they've tended toward film noir.  Then I remembered that in, "Born Yesterday," Judy Holliday and William Holden are poor, underestimated, powerless people who are far smarter than anyone thinks they are, and they quietly stick it to her big, scary boyfriend Broderick Crawford.

I too noticed that and think you are reading that reference exactly right.  I was also thrilled by the reference to my namesake in the scene they were watching.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Alexander Pope

[peeayebee]

That is such a good movie. It's been ages since I watched. I must do it again.

In this interview, writer/director Tom Schnauz says:

Quote

We have a catalog of films that we can use for free. There’s a list. We go through them. There are certain films like Scarface in Breaking Bad where we’d have to pay for whatever, but there’s a list of films that’s like, “These will not cost us anything.” We don’t have this grand budget. We needed a movie and that was just one that felt fun for the scene. It’s that simple.

[Starchild]

So then...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar?

[gallimaufry]

4 minutes ago, Starchild said:

So then...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar?

Yes, except... they still chose that one movie out of many available.  And presumably there were multiple people who looked and thought about it.  (They've also integrated the classic movie motif pretty effectively by now from the "Ice Station Zebra" references to the frequent referencing of "Days of Wine and Roses").

Similarly, Tom Schnauz on the podcast also debunked the idea floating around that the rotating can was designed to act as a symmetry to the rotating silencer Lalo uses at the end.  That wasn't intended.  And yet... it does actually mirror really elegantly and once you see it, it's hard (for me at least) to unsee.  Perhaps there was a subconscious element - the clients getting a surprise part was clearly a deliberate nod so it's not so far from the same concept.  Or perhaps it's serendipity lending the project a hand.  Clearly, there are many instances where these symmetries are designed and intended (including the cockroach callback just minutes before).  If the reading enriches the show, I don't think it's a problem if it wasn't originally foreseen.  It's just neat.

[PeterPirate]

There was the sequence as they were preparing Lenny for the re-shoot.  It must have taken a fair amount of time and effort to choreograph having the camera revolve around the actors.  Maybe they just wanted to do something artsy-fartsy without intending any symbolic meaning.  

[Milburn Stone]

On 5/23/2022 at 9:42 PM, Ellaria Sand said:

RIP Howard - he didn’t deserve that!! Patrick Fabian was terrific.

I don't know if he's ever won an Emmy, but he should now.

[Irlandesa]

On 5/27/2022 at 12:54 PM, gallimaufry said:

With Nacho and Howard, it feels like they just ran out of road and were out of time so they shuffled them off.  I guess we'll see in the back six but I'm not sure how deeply their deaths are likely to resonate -- I think I'm right that Nacho hasn't been mentioned since.

I think Nacho and Howard are different.  Nacho's death served the purpose of closing some doors. It easier for Gus and Mike to keep moving on their set paths towards the BB time line. Lalo's death would do the same.  But they're used to bloody deaths.

Howard's death wouldn't serve any narrative purpose as is the way Nacho's did. Kim and Jimmy aren't used to bloody murder in front of them.  And we know they likely have some ground to cover to get Jimmy/Saul to get to the guy we saw in Breaking Bad.  And we don't know where Kim is. I guess it's possible she's still around in the BB timeline and we are where they'll be but I tend to think not. 

[gallimaufry]

4 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

I think Nacho and Howard are different.  Nacho's death served the purpose of closing some doors. It easier for Gus and Mike to keep moving on their set paths towards the BB time line. Lalo's death would do the same.  But they're used to bloody deaths.

True but I kind of hoped after six years, the death would be more consequential than "that's the end of that."  Of course, it was powerful in its own right and did give a nice shape to Nacho's arc but I wanted, like Chuck's death, to see it really changing the trajectory of the show and I just don't see that.

During 603, we got a little of Mike's development, seeing the world through his eyes - evidently, there's a progression that's happening with his relationship to killing.  But arguably, Werner was a bigger breakpoint for him.  I assumed that he would be the one to teach Gus that love is a better motivator than fear although I'm not sure that's necessarily the case.  And of course Jimmy barely knows Nacho, which is probably one of my biggest disappointments: for all these years, it's seemed like there was this big history to the two characters but we got 95% of their interactions after episode 104.

My hope is that the promise to save Manuel Varga becomes important to Mike in his character's endgame.  However, I can't see that anyone (except perhaps Hector) would really care about Manuel now.  Clearly Nacho will be mentioned again in some form as Jimmy knows in BB to blame him but I can't see there being a lot to come.

4 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Howard's death wouldn't serve any narrative purpose as is the way Nacho's did. Kim and Jimmy aren't used to bloody murder in front of them.  And we know they likely have some ground to cover to get Jimmy/Saul to get to the guy we saw in Breaking Bad.  And we don't know where Kim is. I guess it's possible she's still around in the BB timeline and we are where they'll be but I tend to think not. 

Actually I can see Howard's death driving a lot more of the second half of the season.  Just logistically, the disappearance of the head of a major ABQ law firm would send a lot of ripples through the relatively small legal world and even if nobody knows that Jimmy and Kim witnessed it, Cliff at least might have a sense that something was not right with the switched PI numbers and think to follow up on Howard's Jimmy accusations.  Not to mention, of course, the emotional consequences of having brought him low and being responsible for him ending up in the same room as Lalo, even though that was never their intention.

One connecting theme that they might elucidate in the back half, which might salvage all of this, is the idea of being forgotten and everything being left behind.  We started 601 with a "Citizen Kane" survey of all the stuff Jimmy had, which is all now left behind.  We have a sense that Kim hasn't carried any material objects -- except, we now learn, for the earrings -- from her old life.  Chuck's objects literally burned away and the idea of "picking up a keepsake or two" was met with explosive scorn. 

We've seen how Chuck survives: a painting on the wall, a fond memory from Howard, an unspoken ghost for Jimmy and Kim, and a "who's that?" from the junior HHM partners.  If HHM folds without Howard (and perhaps unable to recover from the scandal that its doubly-named partner went crazy in a meeting and then vanished into the night), what becomes of Chuck's legacy?  Is the Chuck portrait going to be "cleaned up" - sold or binned - just like Saul's in 601?  Is the dedication plate on his library going to be unscrewed?  How does his scholarship fund operate? 

What remnants are left when "the game" is done?

Mike will be remembered by his granddaughter but I suspect it won't be the money (if Mike can even find another way to get it to her) but the stories and the time spent that she'll truly remember. 

I hope that somehow Mike can convey to Manuel the goodness Nacho displayed at the end but if not he's only to be remembered by the audience and as a flower blooming in the desert.

And does Mike manage to save the town (and fountain) dedicated to Max or is that all to be washed away -- we already saw the Los Pollos Hermanos frontage being expunged in 502 of "Breaking Bad" and of course Walt and then Uncle Jack essentially inherited the meth empire.

Chuck and Howard will be more or less forgotten.  

And what legacy has Kim left?  Even Viola is unlikely to think fondly of her if even a fraction of what she's done comes out.

Ironically, given her reaction to seeing Kevin's display of bank branch models, the biggest tactile legacy she probably will have is the Lubbock branch of Mesa Verde.  (Bizarre though it would be, imagine in the finale if Jimmy and Kim meet up in the Lubbock branch in the "extended part" -- one of the few tangible legacies they have and perhaps even then Mesa Verde is now going under and the building is going to be repurposed.)

Saul, of course, was remembered as Gene is now experiencing.  Even then, time will erase that, like the VHS playback on the opening credits.

I'm reminded of Shakespeare: "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones."  Both parts certainly seems to be true of Chuck, Nacho and Howard, and Kim's mother if she's dead.  I guess we'll see what Jimmy leaves behind at the end.

(Less grandly, one legacy of both deaths -- which I'd file under the "neat" category with the can/silencer imagery rather than anything that was necessarily planned -- is that the symbols left behind after their deaths kind of match the "wine and roses" theme.  Nacho survives as a desert rose.  Howard's whiskey (?) bottle will still be left on the counter alongside Jimmy and Kim's wine when all is said and done with Lalo.)

[PeterPirate]

On 5/26/2022 at 11:26 AM, Tatum said:

I agree. Kim is not soulless at all. And while she's been grinding viewers' gears for awhile now, I think her turning the car around and blowing off the legal justice meeting to frantically regroup so Howard's orchestrated downfall goes on as planned is completely inconsistent with her character. I get that she is singularly focused and does not like to leave things unfinished, but this whole "equal legal representation for everyone" goal has been her priority for a long time.

And I am not sure I really understand her hatred of Howard. I guess he represents everything she thinks is wrong with the legal system and is basically classism personified, but she has always been principled in her own way and this doesn't track.

What I do think is interesting about Kim is that I do think she has the ability that Jimmy lacks to justify things to herself. She doesn't have to feel guilt that way.

I don't think Kim is soulless either.  I think Kim's soul has been corroded by her continued association with Jimmy.   She wants to be Atticus Finch (and for the sake of argument let's assume she meant the version of Atticus Finch from To Kill A Mockingbird and not the one from Go Set A Watchman).  And I think her umbrage over the way the Kettleman's bilked their clients was genuine.  

Howard was not incorrect in saying J&K were "like Leopold and Loeb".  They are most assuredly attracted to the thrill of the con.  But Howard was unaware of their criminal behavior, and therefore of the effect that exposure to the underworld has had their psyches, especially Kim's.  

Kim has been repressing her emotional reactions to the things she has witnessed, to her detriment.  A true sociopath would not have those emotional reactions at all.

Edited May 29, 2022 by PeterPirate

[Starchild]

2 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

I think Kim's soul has been corroded by her continued association with Jimmy.

I have a slightly different take. I think Kim's soul corrosion started with her mother. I think that's the person Kim has been for a very long time, but she fought it until associating with Jimmy started to expose her true self. Jimmy is her cancer diagnosis (sorry for another Walt parallel).

[peeayebee]

11 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

I don't know if he's ever won an Emmy, but he should now.

They all should.

2 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

I don't think Kim is soulless either.  I think Kim's soul has been corroded by her continued association with Jimmy. 

And vice versa. Certainly Kim's association with Jimmy reminded her of the thrill of the scam and directed her down that bad road, but how different would Jimmy have been if Kim hadn't pushed for the burning down of Howard? Jimmy didn't want to do it. He did it for her.

I certainly don't see Howard's death as pointless re the show's narrative. It's going to have profound consequences on how Jimmy and Kim behave from now on. Emotionally, it was devastating for them, and perhaps a wakeup call. Of course that doesn't mean it will wake them up to be better people, as we certainly know of Jimmy/Saul. But we'll have to see HOW it changes them, which I think it will.

I say that, but the death reminds me of the airplane crash that Walter White had a hand in. An unintended consequence. But those deaths didn't change Walter. They were just collateral damage.

[Neiman]

I found this episode difficult to watch.  I didn't want to see Howard die, especially like that.  I hope that when his body is found it is not considered a suicide.  Depending on the timing of the body's discovery, it could come across like that, and I just want better for him.  

[Milburn Stone]

37 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

I say that, but the death reminds me of the airplane crash that Walter White had a hand in. An unintended consequence. But those deaths didn't change Walter. They were just collateral damage.

I agree with your point that the death of Howard will change Jimmy and Kim, and I don't know why you stopped there! Wouldn't those air crash deaths have changed Walter? You kill 300 people, unintentionally or not, and one possible change is you go "in for a penny, in for a pound." (Of course we would prefer a lifetime of remorse, and that is also change.)

Why I feel like Patrick Fabian especially deserves all the awards is probably just because A) he doesn't get as much attention as other cast members, and B) he--as far as I'm concerned--came out of nowhere with this role. I just looked at the IMDB, and am astonished that he's done a ton of work since the early 90s. Yet I have seen none of it! Not one frame!

What an actor.

[Penman61]

On 5/26/2022 at 1:12 PM, peeayebee said:

Re the wheelchair -- It was unnecessary for Howard to use that, but I don't think it would have been of any significance if the meeting went normally, without K&J's shenanigans. I doubt anyone -- not the mediator, not Schweikart -- would have brought it up. It was irrelevant. Howard just wanted to create more sympathy, subliminally, though Irene was such a sweet lady that she really didn't need any more sympathy added on. Maybe Howard did this to make himself more sympathetic. After all, he's the one who wheels her in. He's not a cold-hearted lawyer just in it for the money; he really cares about his clients.

This universe doesn't do binaries; it does continuums.

Howard using the wheelchair to garner sympathy is a lawyer's theatrical ploy on a continuum with Kim borrowing Jimmy's jacket for her client and, of course, all the stuff that Jimmy does for his clients, including elaborate schemes and unlawful ruses.

It's up to us to plot these things on the continuum of lawyerly theatricality/chicanery/illegality. But what Howard did with the wheelchair is definitely on that continuum, and that was the point, to show what he does have in common with Kim and Jimmy.

Edited May 29, 2022 by Penman61

[PeterPirate]

2 hours ago, Starchild said:

I have a slightly different take. I think Kim's soul corrosion started with her mother. I think that's the person Kim has been for a very long time, but she fought it until associating with Jimmy started to expose her true self. Jimmy is her cancer diagnosis (sorry for another Walt parallel).

Oh, absolutely.  We still don't know why Kim chose Jimmy of all people in the first place, and there are hints we are going to get more of Kim's backstory.  

1 hour ago, peeayebee said:

They all should.

And vice versa. Certainly Kim's association with Jimmy reminded her of the thrill of the scam and directed her down that bad road, but how different would Jimmy have been if Kim hadn't pushed for the burning down of Howard? Jimmy didn't want to do it. He did it for her.  

I have a different take on that.  I think Jimmy crossed the Rubicon and became Saul when he carted Lalo's drug money across the desert.  That's when he became The Criminal Lawyer in the eyes of both his clientele and the justice system.  His love for Kim got him through the ordeal, but I don't think it motivated him to take on the job in the first place.  

[Penman61]

3 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

That's when he became The Criminal Lawyer in the eyes of both his clientele and the justice system.  His love for Kim got him through the ordeal, but I don't think it motivated him to take on the job in the first place.  

Thanks for reminding me that identity shifts take place not only internally (in Kim's corroding soul, etc.), but in terms of social perception--and that has a HUGE effect on our identities. The show went to a lot of trouble to dramatize this significant shift in Jimmy/Saul's social identity. 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Penman61

[Starchild]

24 minutes ago, Penman61 said:

This universe doesn't do binaries; it does continuums.

Howard using the wheelchair to garner sympathy is a lawyer's theatrical ploy on a continuum with Kim borrowing Jimmy's jacket for her client and, of course, all the stuff that Jimmy does for his clients, including elaborate schemes and unlawful ruses.

It's up to us to plot these things on the continuum of lawyerly theatricality/chicanery/illegality. But what Howard did with the wheelchair is definitely on that continuum, and that was the point, to show what he does have in common with Kim and Jimmy.

Maybe it was an indication of the effect of the drug on Howard's judgment? Without it, perhaps he wouldn't have made that choice. It does seem out of character.

Speaking of Howard's character, I finally watched that video about Howard as an object of displacement for Jimmy and especially for Kim. Even Chuck, to an extent, although he used him more as a proxy in his battle with Jimmy.

Makes me wonder if he would have put Kim in doc review if not for Chuck. Maybe Chuck wanted to get rid of her altogether as punishment for associating with Jimmy, and doc review was a compromise that Howard negotiated on her behalf. We'll never know now of course, unless it comes out incidentally in some conversation Kim has with someone at HHM. But if that were the case, wow, talk about tragic.

Speaking of, it makes this whole thing even more tragic, that Howard has had to pay the price for other characters' deep emotional issues that were never even about him.

[Cinnabon]

1 hour ago, Milburn Stone said:

I agree with your point that the death of Howard will change Jimmy and Kim, and I don't know why you stopped there! Wouldn't those air crash deaths have changed Walter? You kill 300 people, unintentionally or not, and one possible change is you go "in for a penny, in for a pound." (Of course we would prefer a lifetime of remorse, and that is also change.)

Why I feel like Patrick Fabian especially deserves all the awards is probably just because A) he doesn't get as much attention as other cast members, and B) he--as far as I'm concerned--came out of nowhere with this role. I just looked at the IMDB, and am astonished that he's done a ton of work since the early 90s. Yet I have seen none of it! Not one frame!

What an actor.

But Walt didn’t kill those people. Everything we do and every choice we make changes the course of life in minute ways. If I invite my parents over and they get into a fatal accident on the way, did I kill them? Or did the other driver kill them? Or did the other driver’s child who distracted them, causing them to look away from the road briefly kill them? Lalo was the only one who killed Howard.

Edited May 29, 2022 by Cinnabon

[Cinnabon]

1 hour ago, Penman61 said:

This universe doesn't do binaries; it does continuums.

Howard using the wheelchair to garner sympathy is a lawyer's theatrical ploy on a continuum with Kim borrowing Jimmy's jacket for her client and, of course, all the stuff that Jimmy does for his clients, including elaborate schemes and unlawful ruses.

It's up to us to plot these things on the continuum of lawyerly theatricality/chicanery/illegality. But what Howard did with the wheelchair is definitely on that continuum, and that was the point, to show what he does have in common with Kim and Jimmy.

Just as it was shown in the previous episode, where he claimed that the need to hold out for the settlement was not about money, but only to hold greedy billion dollar corporations like Sandpiper accountable, even though many of the elderly plaintiffs likely don’t have much time to wait. He came across much like Jimmy in that scene, with his ability to charm and manipulate. 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Cinnabon