S06.E07: Plan and Execution

[Bannon]

7 hours ago, millennium said:

From a moral standpoint, no.  But the impact/shock value is certainly less.   Saul was, in many if not most cases, an accessory to the deaths in Breaking Bad.   He also proposed that problematic people be killed.   With that knowledge in mind, I can't find it in myself to be appalled that he slipped Howard a mickey or caused the man's colleagues to doubt his integrity.   Breaking Bad normalized far worse behavior on Saul's part.

Besides, weren't there one or two occasions in earlier seasons where Howard attempted to poison people's opinions of Jimmy?

I've already said I wasn't shocked by K&S drugging Howard. I don't understand not being appalled by an appalling act, because the person has done more appalling things. Poisoning opinions is not synonymous with falsely portraying someone as a person who shoves women out of cars. If one is poisoning opinions via conveying accurate information, it's not even remotely similar.

Few in these threads have been more harshly critical of Howard's behavior than I. It was thoroughly despicable. None of it remotely serves as justification for what K&S did to him. That's one of the great aspects of this writing.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Bannon

[PeterPirate]

I have no recollection of Howard doing anything to "poison" Jimmy's/Saul's reputation.  

I do remember Jimmy calling Howard a "pigfucker" in Episode 1-9, and Howard being completely gracious to him the next episode. 

[Cinnabon]

34 minutes ago, Bannon said:

I mostly agree, but there were the Skyler critics who were fans of Walt. That's pretty weird.

Exactly. 

[Bannon]

35 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

Howard telling Jimmy that Chuck suffered before he died was intentionally and exceptionally cruel. It would be hard to forgive him for that.

Oh, absolutely. There seems to be difficulty in squaring two propositions; 1) Howard was a contemptible A-hole, and 2) that fact doesn't make what K&S did to him any less contemptible.

[PeterPirate]

I have no recollection of Howard telling Jimmy that Chuck "suffered" before he died. 

I just went back and watched the final scene of Episode 4-1, and I don't think there is anything Howard said that was cruel, especially not intentionally cruel.  In my opinion Howard was talking about how he felt responsible for Chuck's death.

If people can point me to a different scene, that would be great.  

Edited May 25, 2022 by PeterPirate

[DrSpaceman73]

53 minutes ago, Gobi said:

That was a false note to me. No attorney in a firm such as HHM would pull a stunt like that (if for no other reason than because it could be construed as fraud on the court). That's an ambulance chasing, Saul Goodman type of stunt.

They weren't in court. It was arbitration. 

[Bannon]

2 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

I have no recollection of Howard telling Jimmy that Chuck "suffered" before he died. 

I just went back and watched the final scene of Episode 4-1, and I don't think there is anything Howard said that was cruel, especially not intentionally cruel.  

If people can point me to a different scene, that would be great.  

It's the scene where Howard shows up to wherever Kim and Jimmy are hanging out, I believe after Chuck's funeral, and attempts to assauge his feelings of guilt, explicitly sharing with K&J that Chuck's death was a suicide.Jimmy surprises Kim by saying something close to  "Well, Howard, that's just a cross you'll have to bear". It's a source of Kim's hatred of Howard, as shown in her dressing down of Howard, in the wake of the meeting with Howard and Chuck's ex-wife, to discuss the settlement of Chuck's estate.

[qtpye]

I want to say that the true misogyny was when idiot fans went after the actress who played Skylar.

Do they think that all the male actors are drug manufacturers and scumbags in real life?

I knew Walt was bad news in the first season. However, many people loved the guy until he showed no remorse for killing Drew Sharpe.

The problem is Walt's evil is seen as "badass" and Skylar is just "shrewish" which upholds both toxic masculinity and femininity. 

Many people have commented that Kim told Howard to run and go away.

I think Howard thought Jimmy and Kim's panic was another "con" to make him look even more stupid. He probably thought they were just being dramatic to get him out of their apartment.

Also, even if he had left immediately, he was dead the second he saw Lalo's face.

[Sharper2002]

11 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Gus is somehow just as scary when he smiles. 

I read a comment somewhere that described his friendly persona as a “rattlesnake trying to smile”. It felt so fitting for that character.

[Gobi]

6 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

They weren't in court. It was arbitration. 

Still wouldn't be done. The arbitrator would not take kindly to it, for one. Sweikert would be sure to ask her about it (he's not at risk if she does need a wheelchair since there is no record). The arbitration is part of the legal procedure, so faking the need for a wheelchair could be brought to the court's attention. If the case went to trial, Sweikert absolutely would cross examine her about it.

In the legal profession, one's reputation is of paramount importance (as demonstrated in the show by the reaction to Saul). Faking the need for a wheelchair would spread, and it would not sit well with Judges and opposing counsel in other cases. There might not be a direct reference to it made, but that attorney would pay a price.

[Bannon]

1 hour ago, Gobi said:

That was a false note to me. No attorney in a firm such as HHM would pull a stunt like that (if for no other reason than because it could be construed as fraud on the court). That's an ambulance chasing, Saul Goodman type of stunt.

I dunno. The most reputable law firms go to great lengths to portray their clients in the most sympathetic light, and it really isn't fraudulent; I have elderly relatives who can walk just fine, who are sometimes offered, and accept, the use of a wheelchair. This was a shot across Schweikert:'s bow..."If this leaves mediation and goes to trial, this is how the jury is going to see the plaintiffs, every day. How do you think that's going to work out for Sandpiper?".

[Cinnabon]

12 minutes ago, qtpye said:

I want to say that the true misogyny was when idiot fans went after the actress who played Skylar.

Do they think that all the male actors are drug manufacturers and scumbags in real life?

I knew Walt was bad news in the first season. However, many people loved the guy until he showed no remorse for killing Drew Sharpe.

The problem is Walt's evil is seen as "badass" and Skylar is just "shrewish" which upholds both toxic masculinity and femininity. 

Many people have commented that Kim told Howard to run and go away.

I think Howard thought Jimmy and Kim's panic was another "con" to make him look even more stupid. He probably thought they were just being dramatic to get him out of their apartment.

Also, even if he had left immediately, he was dead the second he saw Lalo's face.

Yep, some (mostly men) thought Skyler’s smoking a cigarette and “cheating “ on Walt (even though they were separated and she was desperate to get him away from the kids) was worse than Walt’s constant lying, making  and selling a drug that poisons people and ruins their lives, trying to poison a child, and putting his own family (including a special needs child and an infant) into grave danger. They probably would’ve applauded Walt had he had an affair. And in BCS, I think they would applaud many of the characteristics they dislike in Kim if she were male. 

Edited May 25, 2022 by Cinnabon

[PeterPirate]

5 minutes ago, Bannon said:

It's the scene where Howard shows up to wherever Kim and Jimmy are hanging out, I believe after Chuck's funeral, and attempts to assauge his feelings of guilt, explicitly sharing with K&J that Chuck's death was a suicide.Jimmy surprises Kim by saying something close to  "Well, Howard, that's just a cross you'll have to bear". It's a source of Kim's hatred of Howard, as shown in her dressing down of Howard, in the wake of the meeting with Howard and Chuck's ex-wife, to discuss the settlement of Chuck's estate.

Yes, I just watched that scene and I find nothing Howard said that was "cruel".   Fortunately I found an online script vault.  Here is what Howard said, after cutting out two short interjections by Jimmy: 

I think I owe you the truth about Chuck.  Those lanterns.  He was living in that house without electricity for the better part of two years.  He knew how to use those lanterns.  He was careful. I saw it.  I know you did, too.  There was never a problem.  I know it's a terrible thing to...I don't think what happened was an accident.  You probably heard Chuck was retiring from HHM.  But that's not the truth.  The truth is - that we had a disagreement and I pushed him out.  I made him go.  Chuck was sick for years.  And after the bar hearing...The bar hearing had nothing to do with it.  Okay.  The fact is, he started
getting better after that.  He took more of an interest in the firm.  He came to work.  We could leave the lights on.  He was improving until
the thing with the insurance.  So, I-it wasn't the bar hearing.

It was a ridiculous thing.  I should've just let it go.  I mean, God knows he's done enough for me.  But he kept pushing.  And I, um... I got my back up.  

It was, uh, our malpractice insurance.  They found out about Chuck's condition, raised our rates.  Chuck went ballistic.  He wanted to go to war.  I drew a line.  He wouldn't back down.  So I forced him out.  It never occurred to me that I could hurt him.  He always seemed so strong.  But he wasn't.  I think he did what he did because of me.

Source:  https://subslikescript.com/series/Better_Call_Saul-3032476/season-4/episode-1-Smoke

So, again, what specifically did Howard say that was intentionally cruel?  

[Bannon]

15 minutes ago, Gobi said:

Still wouldn't be done. The arbitrator would not take kindly to it, for one. Sweikert would be sure to ask her about it (he's not at risk if she does need a wheelchair since there is no record). The arbitration is part of the legal procedure, so faking the need for a wheelchair could be brought to the court's attention. If the case went to trial, Sweikert absolutely would cross examine her about it.

In the legal profession, one's reputation is of paramount importance (as demonstrated in the show by the reaction to Saul). Faking the need for a wheelchair would spread, and it would not sit well with Judges and opposing counsel in other cases. There might not be a direct reference to it made, but that attorney would pay a price.

It was mediation, not arbitration. Elderly people who can walk fine use wheelchairs on a selective basis with great frequency. It's not fraudulent. This isn't a disability lawsuit, where the mobility of the plaintiff is a central element.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Bannon

[Bannon]

2 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Yes, I just watched that scene and I find nothing Howard said that was "cruel".   Fortunately I found an online script vault.  Here is what Howard said, after cutting out two short interjections by Jimmy: 

I think I owe you the truth about Chuck.  Those lanterns.  He was living in that house without electricity for the better part of two years.  He knew how to use those lanterns.  He was careful. I saw it.  I know you did, too.  There was never a problem.  I know it's a terrible thing to...I don't think what happened was an accident.  You probably heard Chuck was retiring from HHM.  But that's not the truth.  The truth is - that we had a disagreement and I pushed him out.  I made him go.  Chuck was sick for years.  And after the bar hearing...The bar hearing had nothing to do with it.  Okay.  The fact is, he started
getting better after that.  He took more of an interest in the firm.  He came to work.  We could leave the lights on.  He was improving until
the thing with the insurance.  So, I-it wasn't the bar hearing.

It was a ridiculous thing.  I should've just let it go.  I mean, God knows he's done enough for me.  But he kept pushing.  And I, um... I got my back up.  

It was, uh, our malpractice insurance.  They found out about Chuck's condition, raised our rates.  Chuck went ballistic.  He wanted to go to war.  I drew a line.  He wouldn't back down.  So I forced him out.  It never occurred to me that I could hurt him.  He always seemed so strong.  But he wasn't.  I think he did what he did because of me.

Source:  https://subslikescript.com/series/Better_Call_Saul-3032476/season-4/episode-1-Smoke

So, again, what specifically did Howard say that was intentionally cruel?  

As Kim later berates Howard, going out of his way to clearly state that Chuck purposely set himself on fire and died in burning agony, and did not die in his sleep of smoke inhalation, was an extremely cruel and despicable thing to do, for completely selfish reasons.

[PeterPirate]

6 minutes ago, Bannon said:

As Kim later berates Howard, going out of his way to clearly state that Chuck purposely set himself on fire and died in burning agony, and did not die in his sleep of smoke inhalation, was an extremely cruel and despicable thing to do, for completely selfish reasons.

The word "cruel", at least to me, connotes the intention of inflicting harm.  Howard was unburdening himself, perhaps selfishly and inappropriately, but I would not use the word "cruel".  

[Gobi]

11 minutes ago, Bannon said:

It was mediation, not arbitration. Elderly people who can walk fine use wheelchairs on a selective basis with great frequency. It's not fraudulent. This isn't a disability lawsuit, where the mobility of the plaintiff is a central element.

The credibility of the plaintiff is a central element. When it is shown (and it would be) that she was never prescribed a wheelchair, has no condition that would require the use of a wheelchair (she told Howard she doesn't need one)

22 minutes ago, Bannon said:

I dunno. The most reputable law firms go to great lengths to portray their clients in the most sympathetic light, and it really isn't fraudulent; I have elderly relatives who can walk just fine, who are sometimes offered, and accept, the use of a wheelchair. This was a shot across Schweikert:'s bow..."If this leaves mediation and goes to trial, this is how the jury is going to see the plaintiffs, every day. How do you think that's going to work out for Sandpiper?".

and only uses one when appearing for the case, that is not going to sit well with the Judge or the jury. The possible risks for the plaintiff's case far outweigh the possible benefits.

"If this leaves mediation and goes to trial, the jury is going to find out that your client doesn't need a wheelchair and only used it because you told her to. How do you think that's going to work out for your case?"

[Bannon]

Just now, PeterPirate said:

The word "cruel", at least to me, connotes the intention of inflicting harm.  Howard was unburdening himself, perhaps selfishly and inappropriately, but I would not use the word "cruel".  

If one were to say "thoughtlessly cruel", I wouldn't object. To be so self-centered as to not grasp that telling a person that their brother died in burning agony, not in his sleep from smoke inhalation, is very hurtful, seems plenty despicable to me.

Just now, Gobi said:

The credibility of the plaintiff is a central element. When it is shown (and it would be) that she was never prescribed a wheelchair, has no condition that would require the use of a wheelchair (she told Howard she doesn't need one)

and only uses one when appearing for the case, that is not going to sit well with the Judge or the jury. The possible risks for the plaintiff's case far outweigh the possible benefits.

"If this leaves mediation and goes to trial, the jury is going to find out that your client doesn't need a wheelchair and only used it because you told her to. How do you think that's going to work out for your case?"

Your experience with the elderly, and their use of wheelchairs, is entirely different than mine. 

[qtpye]

It is kind of brilliant the way they have changed the framing of Howard from smug entitled princeling that was born on third base to kid on the playground who gets bullied for being a giant dork.

It would have been more thrilling to see Howard outsmart Kim and Jimmy because I doubt their egos could have handled that.

Howards death was just so tragic and shocking.

[peeayebee]

1 minute ago, PeterPirate said:

The word "cruel", at least to me, connotes the intention of inflicting harm.  Howard was unburdening himself, perhaps selfishly and inappropriately, but I would not use the word "cruel".  

I completely agree. Howard wasn't being cruel. He was riddled with guilt. Yes, he wasn't thinking about how his words were hurting Jimmy -- I don't mean inadvertently telling the truth about where the blame really lies (with Jimmy for the malpractice insurance stuff) but by talking about Chuck suffering. But he wasn't being cruel.

14 minutes ago, Bannon said:

As Kim later berates Howard, going out of his way to clearly state that Chuck purposely set himself on fire and died in burning agony, and did not die in his sleep of smoke inhalation, was an extremely cruel and despicable thing to do, for completely selfish reasons.

Just because Kim said this doesn't make it true. You have to look at ulterior motives.

10 hours ago, Bannon said:

Forgiving someone has exactly nothing to do with refraining from engaging in a complex revenge scheme which entails trying to falsely convince 3rd parties that the target of revenge is engaged in criminal activity, or drugging that target without their knowledge. Kim didn't to forgive  Howard to avoid engaging in those wholly unethical and illegal behaviors.

I was reading something yesterday where it was pointed out that Jimmy and Kim were somewhat repulsed by Howard forgiving them. (I'll have to search for that article.) I think this connects to this post. Kind of like, Forgiving is for suckers. Kim and Jimmy would never want to be suckers.

1 hour ago, Cinnabon said:

As well as his ability to manipulate (while still coming across as “charming”), by insisting that Irene be wheeled into the meeting.

I loved that, dramatically speaking. First, when he's in the conference room checking things out beforehand, he moves one of the chairs out of the way, which we later learn is because he wants to bring her in in the wheelchair. Yes, it's manipulative, and it's a game that all lawyers play. I was actually involved in a mediation a couple of years ago (via Zoom), and our attorney, who was considered one of the best for this particular case, said this was theater. Without doing anything unethical, you played the game.

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, JudyObscure said:

Yes, a thousand times yes.  This comparison thing comes up all the time with these shows and I don't  get it.  No one could ever criticize Skylar without being told that Walt was worse. 

1 hour ago, Cinnabon said:

Some people just love their whataboutisms, now more than ever. It can be infuriating. I often ask them if they think 2 wrongs make a right. 
 

Regarding Skylar and BB, I saw misogyny when people judged Skylar so harshly but cheered on Walt. And the things she was often criticized for were little things, instead of the truly despicable ones. I see the same in some of the criticisms of Kim. Independent, assertive, highly educated, dominant, unemotional, headstrong women really trigger some people, even though they see the same traits in a man as acceptable and positive.  

Yeah, I watched the first season or so before coming online and was completely surprised to find out Skyler was hated. Not because she was good, but because I thought it was just one more sometimes terrible / sometimes great flawed character in the universe.

1 hour ago, Cinnabon said:

Howard telling Jimmy that Chuck suffered before he died was intentionally and exceptionally cruel. It would be hard to forgive him for that.

But then, even that would be Saul blaming Howard instead of himself. It was cruel, but the biggest sting of it is probably that Jimmy knows he drove him to it. And here's Howard again interfering with Jimmy's "I'm not really hurting anybody" view of himself.

[qtpye]

2 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

I was reading something yesterday where it was pointed out that Jimmy and Kim were somewhat repulsed by Howard forgiving them. (I'll have to search for that article.) I think this connects to this post. Kind of like, Forgiving is for suckers. Kim and Jimmy would never want to be suckers.

Howard is a sheep and they are wolves.

[peeayebee]

7 minutes ago, Bannon said:

If one were to say "thoughtlessly cruel", I wouldn't object. To be so self-centered as to not grasp that telling a person that their brother died in burning agony, not in his sleep from smoke inhalation, is very hurtful, seems plenty despicable to me.

I MIGHT agree with 'thoughtlessly cruel,' but I would still give Howard a lot of sympathy because of his state of mind. Now, Jimmy saying "That's your cross to bear," was deliberately cruel. Jimmy could see that Howard was suffering, completely blaming himself for Chuck's death. Jimmy twisted the knife, basically to deflect from his own feelings of guilt. 

[Bannon]

5 minutes ago, qtpye said:

It is kind of brilliant the way they have changed the framing of Howard from smug entitled princeling that was born on third base to kid on the playground who gets bullied for being a giant dork.

It would have been more thrilling to see Howard outsmart Kim and Jimmy because I doubt their egos could have handled that.

Howards death was just so tragic and shocking.

Nothing less than brilliant, really. The way these writers take the time (and this is what I think those who complain about slow pace are missing) to allow characters to be more than one simple trope, is one of the main features that set it apart from lesser stories.

1 minute ago, peeayebee said:

I MIGHT agree with 'thoughtlessly cruel,' but I would still give Howard a lot of sympathy because of his state of mind. Now, Jimmy saying "That's your cross to bear," was deliberately cruel. Jimmy could see that Howard was suffering, completely blaming himself for Chuck's death. Jimmy twisted the knife, basically to deflect from his own feelings of guilt. 

Sure, Jimmy's remarks were cruel as well.

[Penman61]

33 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Sure, Jimmy's remarks were cruel as well.

Jimmy's were more cruel (crueler? Now I'm hungry...). 

If we're assessing severity, cruelty is all about intention, the intentional infliction of emotional distress, if you will.

Howard was clearly relieving some of his own distress, yes, but he was also, in his mind, trying to do the right thing. He was also under tremendous duress and probably not thinking as clearly as he could (same for Jimmy, of course), so that needs to be part of our assessment as well. 

I've had the very unfortunate circumstance of having close family members die under somewhat mysterious circumstances that required probing very upsetting facts to attempt to get at the truth, not unlike what Howard reveals here (though suicide was not in the mix). I wouldn't blame Howard or Jimmy under those circumstances during that conversation, and maybe I'd let them both off the "You are being cruel" hook. But, as outsiders, we have to admit that only one of them was intentionally trying to tell the whole truth, and only one of them intentionally omitted facts to make the other person suffer more.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Penman61

[JudyObscure]

1 hour ago, Bannon said:

I mostly agree, but there were the Skyler critics who were fans of Walt. That's pretty weird.

I didn't follow any message boards about the show at the time (watched it years later) so I didn't see any of that, and of course people hating on Anna Gunn personally for doing a fine job acting the character are inexplicable to me,) but still, I don't see why liking or not liking Walt has a thing to do with liking or not liking Skylar.  It's like saying you must like Walt because he's not nearly as bad as Hector Salamanca.

Liking someone isn't the same as rating their character on a one to ten scale. Skylar set my teeth on edge from the very first episode. I've known too many self-satisfied, petty tyrants like her in real life.  I felt so sorry for Marie growing up with her.

[Bannon]

15 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

I completely agree. Howard wasn't being cruel. He was riddled with guilt. Yes, he wasn't thinking about how his words were hurting Jimmy -- I don't mean inadvertently telling the truth about where the blame really lies (with Jimmy for the malpractice insurance stuff) but by talking about Chuck suffering. But he wasn't being cruel.

Just because Kim said this doesn't make it true. You have to look at ulterior motives.

I was reading something yesterday where it was pointed out that Jimmy and Kim were somewhat repulsed by Howard forgiving them. (I'll have to search for that article.) I think this connects to this post. Kind of like, Forgiving is for suckers. Kim and Jimmy would never want to be suckers.

I loved that, dramatically speaking. First, when he's in the conference room checking things out beforehand, he moves one of the chairs out of the way, which we later learn is because he wants to bring her in in the wheelchair. Yes, it's manipulative, and it's a game that all lawyers play. I was actually involved in a mediation a couple of years ago (via Zoom), and our attorney, who was considered one of the best for this particular case, said this was theater. Without doing anything unethical, you played the game.

I think defense counsel, in a huge case entailing an allegation of millions of dollars wrongfully obtained by the fraudulent billing of elderly residents, would be idiotic to get into a dispute, in front of a jury, over whether the elderly representative plaintiff in the courtroom legitimately needed a whelchair. 

[DrSpaceman73]

1 hour ago, Gobi said:

Still wouldn't be done. The arbitrator would not take kindly to it, for one. Sweikert would be sure to ask her about it (he's not at risk if she does need a wheelchair since there is no record). The arbitration is part of the legal procedure, so faking the need for a wheelchair could be brought to the court's attention. If the case went to trial, Sweikert absolutely would cross examine her about it.

In the legal profession, one's reputation is of paramount importance (as demonstrated in the show by the reaction to Saul). Faking the need for a wheelchair would spread, and it would not sit well with Judges and opposing counsel in other cases. There might not be a direct reference to it made, but that attorney would pay a price.

How would the arbiter know if an old lady he never met needs a wc or not?   You think he is going to challenge her and prove she needs a WC?  Make her try to walk?  Doubtful. 

They were doing this to avoid going to trial. 

[Bannon]

3 minutes ago, Penman61 said:

Jimmy's were more cruel (crueler? Now I'm hungry...). 

If we're assessing severity, cruelty is all about intention, the intentional infliction of emotional distress, if you will.

Howard was clearly relieving some of his own distress, yes, but he was also, in his mind, trying to do the right thing. He was also under tremendous duress and probably not thinking as clearly as he could (same for Jimmy, of course), so that needs to be part of our assessment as well. 

I've had the very unfortunate circumstance of having close family members die under somewhat mysterious circumstances that required probing very upsetting facts to attempt to get at the truth, not unlike what Howard reveals here (though suicide was not in the mix). I wouldn't blame Howard or Jimmy under those circumstances during that conversation, and maybe I'd let them both off the "You are being cruel" hook. But, as outsiders, we have to admit that only one of them was intentionally trying to tell the whole truth.

Intentionally trying to tell the whole truth, without regard to setting, can be extremely cruel, and being focused entirely on their own internal feelings, with no regard for the feelings of others, is how that path is frequently chosen. Doesn't excuse Jimmy, of course, other than the same dynamic: he's feeling awful because his brother just burned to death, and he knows he played a critical role in that outcome.

In the universe created in BB/BCS, there is a human attribute consistently in short supply, that of grace. Hardly ever does anyone seem to grasp that in a world where we are all moral failures, it is critical that we be willing to tolerate the failings of others if the person who displays those failings forthrightly acknowledges them, and makes a good faith effort to repair the damage done.

It's usually bitter recriminations, and denial of wrongdoing at all costs, perhaps in fear of bitter recriminations. It's notable that two characters who went against that trend, Hank and Howard (the former more than the latter, in my opinion), suffered terrible fates.

It's grim commentary on our present society, but I can't say it's inaccurate.

[Constantinople]

1 hour ago, Cinnabon said:

Some people just love their whataboutisms, now more than ever. It can be infuriating. I often ask them if they think 2 wrongs make a right. 
 

Regarding Skylar and BB, I saw misogyny when people judged Skylar so harshly but cheered on Walt. And the things she was often criticized for were little things, instead of the truly despicable ones. I see the same in some of the criticisms of Kim. Independent, assertive, highly educated, dominant, unemotional, headstrong women really trigger some people, even though they see the same traits in a man as acceptable and positive.  

I think Skyler and Kim are very different.

Skyler didn't make great choices, but largely they weren't actions. They were reactions to Walt's behavior and were motivated by protecting her family from the man who protects her family. I don't remember if her suicide attempt was genuine or staged, or if Skyler even knew. But it was the only way she could think of to get Walt Jr and Holly away from Walt. That and waiting for Walt to die.

Skyler isn't perfect. She helped cook Ted's books, and I don't see how that protects her family. Nor do I recall Skyler being sexually aroused by engaging in fraud.

Kim says she wants to help people, but when faced with the choice of pulling a fraud on Howard and nursing home residents or meeting with the legal aid foundation, she chose fraud. She wasn't protecting anyone. She was just being a self-indulgent asshole.

[Bannon]

32 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

I didn't follow any message boards about the show at the time (watched it years later) so I didn't see any of that, and of course people hating on Anna Gunn personally for doing a fine job acting the character are inexplicable to me,) but still, I don't see why liking or not liking Walt has a thing to do with liking or not liking Skylar.  It's like saying you must like Walt because he's not nearly as bad as Hector Salamanca.

Liking someone isn't the same as rating their character on a one to ten scale. Skylar set my teeth on edge from the very first episode. I've known too many self-satisfied, petty tyrants like her in real life.  I felt so sorry for Marie growing up with her.

I don't understand having one's teeth set on edge by the failings displayed by Skyler, but not moreso by the failings displayed by Walt, because Walt's failings were far, far. worse. I don't think it's strange at all to think Skyler was awful. She often was.

[Penman61]

14 minutes ago, Bannon said:

In the universe created in BB/BCS, there is a human attribute consistently in short supply, that of grace. Hardly ever does anyone seem to grasp that in a world where we are all moral failures, it is critical that we be willing to tolerate the failings of others if the person who displays those failings forthrightly acknowledges them, and makes a good faith effort to repair the damage done.

It's usually bitter recriminations, and denial of wrongdoing at all costs, perhaps in fear of bitter recriminations. It's notable that two characters who went against that trend, Hank and Howard (the former more than the latter, in my opinion), suffered terrible fates.

It's grim commentary on our present society, but I can't say it's inaccurate.

I agree. Howard's tragedy is how close to grace he was ("Maybe there's more to life than being a smart lawyer"), and Jimmy's is how much further away from it he goes with every episode.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Penman61

[Bannon]

6 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

I think Skyler and Kim are very different.

Skyler didn't make great choices, but largely they weren't actions. They were reactions to Walt's behavior and were motivated by protecting her family from the man who protects her family. I don't remember if her suicide attempt was genuine or staged, or if Skyler even knew. But it was the only way she could think of to get Walt Jr and Holly away from Walt. That and waiting for Walt to die.

Skyler isn't perfect. She helped cook Ted's books, and I don't see how that protects her family. Nor do I recall Skyler being sexually aroused by engaging in fraud.

Kim says she wants to help people, but when faced with the choice of pulling a fraud on Howard and nursing home residents or meeting with the legal aid foundation, she chose fraud. She wasn't protecting anyone. She was just being a self-indulgent asshole.

Skyler was quite happy to accept the material benefits she knew (she wasn't an idiot) came from murder and poisonings. That's contemptible.

[sistermagpie]

52 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

I MIGHT agree with 'thoughtlessly cruel,' but I would still give Howard a lot of sympathy because of his state of mind. Now, Jimmy saying "That's your cross to bear," was deliberately cruel. Jimmy could see that Howard was suffering, completely blaming himself for Chuck's death. Jimmy twisted the knife, basically to deflect from his own feelings of guilt. 

42 minutes ago, Penman61 said:

Jimmy's were more cruel (crueler? Now I'm hungry...). 

If we're assessing severity, cruelty is all about intention, the intentional infliction of emotional distress, if you will.

Howard was clearly relieving some of his own distress, yes, but he was also, in his mind, trying to do the right thing. He was also under tremendous duress and probably not thinking as clearly as he could (same for Jimmy, of course), so that needs to be part of our assessment as well. 

Yes, Jimmy was doing it intentionally--but he was also doing it in response to Howard doing it, unintentionally or not. And in retrospect, if Howard thinks about it, he should understand Jimmy's words in that context. That when he says it's Howard's cross to bear, Jimmy was saying that his cross to bear was bigger, thanks Howard. Jimmy felt more strongly about Chuck than Howard did.

42 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

I didn't follow any message boards about the show at the time (watched it years later) so I didn't see any of that, and of course people hating on Anna Gunn personally for doing a fine job acting the character are inexplicable to me,) but still, I don't see why liking or not liking Walt has a thing to do with liking or not liking Skylar.  It's like saying you must like Walt because he's not nearly as bad as Hector Salamanca.

Liking someone isn't the same as rating their character on a one to ten scale. Skylar set my teeth on edge from the very first episode. I've known too many self-satisfied, petty tyrants like her in real life.  I felt so sorry for Marie growing up with her.

<insert joke about SHUT UP SHUP UP SHUT UP here>

I didn't hate Skyler, but still, I totally get where you're coming from. It's not unusual at all for people to react more strongly to petty, everyday things that drive them nuts in a character than things that are objectively morally worse. 

Think about Lalo, even. We all know he's evil, but people (me included) generally don't like those kinds of all-knowing supervillains because they're irritating, not because they're evil.

[aghst]

Was the fire an accident or deliberately set?

I can't recall.

But Chuck was broken by then.

[Bannon]

1 minute ago, aghst said:

Was the fire an accident or deliberately set?

I can't recall.

But Chuck was broken by then.

It certainly appeared to me that he was deliberately kicking a table, covered in newspapers, with a burning lantern on top, with the intention of setting himself on fire.

[Penman61]

56 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Yes, Jimmy was doing it intentionally--but he was also doing it in response to Howard doing it, unintentionally or not. And in retrospect, if Howard thinks about it, he should understand Jimmy's words in that context. That when he says it's Howard's cross to bear, Jimmy was saying that his cross to bear was bigger, thanks Howard. Jimmy felt more strongly about Chuck than Howard did.

Agreed. We can't forget Howard can be something of a drama queen. I mean, calling Kim and Jimmy "Leopold and Loeb" without irony.*

Leopold and Loeb murdered a child for fun and entertainment. Kim and Jimmy might be on their way there, from Howard's POV, but...come on. Howard even conceded that he would land on his feet.

*The irony is that BCS's actual Leopold and Loeb, Lalo, was likely listening quietly outside the door and heard this--and grinned.

** Forgot about Meth Damon, this universe's true L&L.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Penman61

[Razzberry]

I thought Howard was just exaggerating to make a point.  Couples can become dangerous when no one says "Wait, this is wrong."

[tennisgurl]

23 minutes ago, Penman61 said:

Agreed. We can't forget Howard can be something of a drama queen. I mean, calling Kim and Jimmy "Leopold and Loeb" without irony: L&L murdered a child for fun and entertainment. Kim and Jimmy might be on their way there, from Howard's pov, but...come on. 

Howard can certainly be a bit on the dramatic side, but I don't think he was comparing their crimes so much as their motivations. Obviously murdering a child is worse than anything Saul and Kim have done, but Howards point was that they did all of this for fun and to feel clever, which is why Leopold and Loeb murdered a child. I don't think that Saul and Kim are actual clinical sociopaths or that their next scheme will involve kidnapping and murdering a kid, but the reasons for the murder were that Leopold and Loeb thought they were smarter than everyone else and wanted to prove it with a "perfect" crime and because they were thrill seekers who saw murder as something exciting to try. What Kim and Saul did was certainly nothing as horrible as murder, they did absolutely did this because they like the idea of running a con that makes them feel smarter than all the rubes out there, and because they love the thrill of being bad. Also, much like Leopold and Loeb, the two of them bring out the worst in each other, encouraging each others worse behavior, validating the awful things they do. 

[Penman61]

The folie à deux aspect of Kim and Jimmy is the most salient L&L parallel. 100% agree.

But...come ON, Howard. L&L murdered a child for fun. You might have to retire early.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Penman61

[Adiba]

48 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Yes, Jimmy was doing it intentionally--but he was also doing it in response to Howard doing it, unintentionally or not. And in retrospect, if Howard thinks about it, he should understand Jimmy's words in that context. That when he says it's Howard's cross to bear, Jimmy was saying that his cross to bear was bigger, thanks Howard. Jimmy felt more strongly about Chuck than Howard did.

I don’t know, I think Jimmy may have felt stronger negative feelings about Chuck, but not necessarily more positive ones than Howard. Howard listened to Chuck, looked up to him as a mentor—and seemed to be more affected by Chuck’s death than Jimmy. Jimmy feigned grief at Chuck’s graveside and dumped his guilt in Howard’s lap. 
I’m not saying that Jimmy has no feelings or grief over Chuck’s death or that he hasn’t internalized them. But I do not think that all of his actions against Howard have to do with Chuck’s death. 

[aghst]

Leopold & Loeb sounds like an entertainment pair.

[Penman61]

3 minutes ago, aghst said:

Leopold & Loeb sounds like an entertainment pair.

They thought they were.

[SusieQ]

1 hour ago, Bannon said:

Intentionally trying to tell the whole truth, without regard to setting, can be extremely cruel, and being focused entirely on their own internal feelings, with no regard for the feelings of others, is how that path is frequently chosen. Doesn't excuse Jimmy, of course, other than the same dynamic: he's feeling awful because his brother just burned to death, and he knows he played a critical role in that outcome.

In the universe created in BB/BCS, there is a human attribute consistently in short supply, that of grace. Hardly ever does anyone seem to grasp that in a world where we are all moral failures, it is critical that we be willing to tolerate the failings of others if the person who displays those failings forthrightly acknowledges them, and makes a good faith effort to repair the damage done.

It's usually bitter recriminations, and denial of wrongdoing at all costs, perhaps in fear of bitter recriminations. It's notable that two characters who went against that trend, Hank and Howard (the former more than the latter, in my opinion), suffered terrible fates.

It's grim commentary on our present society, but I can't say it's inaccurate.

Your comment about "grace" and tolerance in this show and in our present society (especially in our present society) is so spot on. And something I want to remember in my dealings with others. So thanks for that.

[sistermagpie]

5 minutes ago, Adiba said:

I don’t know, I think Jimmy may have felt stronger negative feelings about Chuck, but not necessarily more positive ones than Howard. Howard listened to Chuck, looked up to him as a mentor—and seemed to be more affected by Chuck’s death than Jimmy. Jimmy feigned grief at Chuck’s graveside and dumped his guilt in Howard’s lap. 
I’m not saying that Jimmy has no feelings or grief over Chuck’s death or that he hasn’t internalized them. But I do not think that all of his actions against Howard have to do with Chuck’s death. 

I think Jimmy's feelings for Chuck were deeper than Howard's in every possible way, positive, negative, complicated. Jimmy's grief wasn't feigned at all, imo, it was complicated and too much for him to deal with. Chuck was, imo, one of the most if not the most important forces in Jimmy's life and could hurt him like no one else could--which I think he nearly if not totally intentionally did by killing himself.

[Adiba]

3 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I think Jimmy's feelings for Chuck were deeper than Howard's in every possible way, positive, negative, complicated. Jimmy's grief wasn't feigned at all, imo, it was complicated and too much for him to deal with. Chuck was, imo, one of the most if not the most important forces in Jimmy's life and could hurt him like no one else could--which I think he nearly if not totally intentionally did by killing himself.

I’m talking about the scene at the gravesite where he comes back to Kim and tells her he was faking. I do think he has real, actual internalized grief, though.

I don’t know if Chuck was the most important force in Jimmy’s life— a force, yes— but my feeling is there are many other things at play with respect to Jimmy and his motivations.
This is just my personal perspective. I’m willing to give Howard more of a break for telling Jimmy that Chuck committed suicide than others here, I guess.

[Cinnabon]

30 minutes ago, Penman61 said:

The folie à deux aspect of Kim and Jimmy is the most salient L&L parallel. 100% agree.

But...come ON, Howard. L&L murdered a child for fun. You might have to retire early.

Yeah, that’s exactly what I was thinking during that scene too.

[peeayebee]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

Yes, Jimmy was doing it intentionally--but he was also doing it in response to Howard doing it, unintentionally or not. And in retrospect, if Howard thinks about it, he should understand Jimmy's words in that context. That when he says it's Howard's cross to bear, Jimmy was saying that his cross to bear was bigger, thanks Howard. Jimmy felt more strongly about Chuck than Howard did.

I very much disagree. Jimmy was implying that, yes, Howard is to blame and so he needs to deal with the burden of that guilt. That's how it came across to Howard and Kim. Jimmy was certainly pushing his own feelings of guilt deep deep down, burying that cross so deep that he couldn't sense he was carrying it, but his intent was to deflect his own guilty feelings onto Howard's already heavy feelings. And then Jimmy gets up, feeds his fish, laughs, and offers to make coffee.

[Spartan Girl]

14 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Kim's sweetly serene countenance when Howard said she had no soul? A thought all but screamed in my head: My God, he might be on to something!

Yeah, Kim's horror at Lalo shooting horror might have been genuine, but I'm old enough to remember how horrified Walt was when Todd murdered Drew Sharp only to compartmentalize it away after paying lip-service remorse to Jesse, and his grief over Hank's death only to blame it all on Jesse and accept zero responsibility until the very end.

Bottom line: let's see how long Kim's remorse (if any) lasts.

[sistermagpie]

17 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

I very much disagree. Jimmy was implying that, yes, Howard is to blame and so he needs to deal with the burden of that guilt. That's how it came across to Howard and Kim. Jimmy was certainly pushing his own feelings of guilt deep deep down, burying that cross so deep that he couldn't sense he was carrying it, but his intent was to deflect his own guilty feelings onto Howard's already heavy feelings. And then Jimmy gets up, feeds his fish, laughs, and offers to make coffee.

Yes, I think you're right-haven't seen the scene in a while. But still, that's Jimmy deflecting and pushing things onto Howard that he can't deal with the same way as Howard feels the need to dump his guilt to others to feel better. It's not surprising to me that Howard is ultimately going to be able to deal with Chuck's death in a healthy way where Jimmy is not. 

25 minutes ago, Adiba said:

I don’t know if Chuck was the most important force in Jimmy’s life— a force, yes— but my feeling is there are many other things at play with respect to Jimmy and his motivations.

Sure, I think Jimmy has other motivations in his life beyond Chuck, but he tried to get that guy's love for practically his whole life and Chuck hated him. I think he was the most important relationship in his whole life, and it was a mostly painful one. And vice versa, unfortunately for Chuck.

Edited May 25, 2022 by sistermagpie