S02.E02: Cobbler

[Conan Troutman]

Such a great post and observation. I, too, thought about the fact that the cup holder was indicative of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole type pf thing. 

Yeah, the two cars, one cup situation is clearly full of symbolism. I think the Mercedes stands for the straight career path at the law firm and that you have to play by the rules with them. The car just comes with the holder as it is, there's no way for Jimmy to do anything about it because all the other cars of the model have the same cup holder (the law abiding conformity). It's the cup that would have to change, i.e. use a different one, which means leaving his Slippin' Jimmy persona behind. Right now, he tosses the cup aside and takes the car, but we know he'll eventually ditch the car (whether by conscious decision or not). Knowing this show and VG's attention to details, I'm pretty sure we'll see the cup in another car with a fitting holder (he'll probably select the car on the criteria of cup holder size) eventually.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Conan Troutman

[shapeshifter]

There's also a parallel drawn with the Mercedes and the tricked out Hummer. Can someone more metaphorically minded/mooded tease this out?

[Bryce Lynch]

OK, I am having a really hard time with Kim and the whole "fabrication of evidence" thing. Evidence of what? Is she saying he fabricated evidence of a non-crime? Then is that "evidence"? First of all, the real primary crime -if the cops had known about it - was selling drugs. The video had nothing to do with that. Nor did it have anything to do with the baseball card theft. The ethical problem here was Jimmy straight out lying to the police. Kim getting on her high horse about the stupid videos makes no sense if she was just cracking up about how Jimmy lied to the police. She's all 'oh that's so funny' and then he tells her he actually filmed videos of Wormald and the pies, and she suddenly gets all virtuous. I found that more offensive than her taking part in the wealth manager manipulation.

Also, I never get these sibling rivalry things. Do older siblings really have such amazing psychic power over younger siblings? Chuck demonstrated his lack of love for Jimmy in season one - why on earth would Jimmy give a rat's ass about what Chuck thought of him. Chuck is a mental case, and he is controlling, vindictive and wants to see Jimmy fail. This is clear. It makes me think less of Jimmy that he still seems to care. Get a grip, guy. Next time your brother calls your name, take out the cellphone and walk over to him - that will show him who's really in charge.

All these complaints aside - I LOVE this show!!

Multiple crimes were committed. Stealing drugs, selling drugs.

Suppose somebody broke into your home and attacked and robbed you, and then he and his lawyer made a fake, backdated surveillance video or log of some sort to "prove" that he could not have been at your home at the time of the crime. Wouldn't that be fabrication of evidence?

If I were looking for a plot hole, it would be the hidey hole really wasn't evidence of any wrongdoing and could have been explained away in any number of ways. ("The old owner must have put it there.")

The beauty of the squat cobbler is that it explains the Hummer and the recovery of the baseball cards as well.

Still, I think the cops would contact his employer and ask if they could investigate whether he was stealing drugs from them. I would think they would be happy to cooperate.

[Blinkoshuman]

 

Also, Jimmy is risking throwing away the opportunity of a lifetime by engaging in such antics for a minor case.

I had that same thought until I remembered that I know how it all ends.

 

 

The cold open with Chuck playing the piano was also incredibly well written; revealing character without a word being spoken, until Howard knocked on the door

Beautifully lit, beautifully filmed, and beautifully played.  I know it had to be Michael McKean really playing there.

 

 

The squat cobbler scene literally had me in tears, it being the funniest thing I've seen on t.v. in many, many, years. I don't know which was better, the acting or the writing.

How they managed to get a clean take on that is beyond me.  

 

 

That final scene on the bed, with Kim realizing she cannot hear any more about Jimmy's shady deals.

Again, I felt so sad for both of them because I'm afraid their relationship won't make it because of something Saul-like that Jimmy does.  And then I remembered I know how it ends.

 

I'm so glad this show exists.  

 

[nodorothyparker]

This really is such a weird show when you think about it.  This past episode has me wanting to root for Jimmy to make the career opportunity of a lifetime work out for him, for he and Kim to get the happy ending halfway between Albuquerque and Santa Fe.  To knock the sanctimonious smirk off of Chuck's face and win in the end.  But thanks to Breaking Bad, we already know what Jimmy will be doing a couple of years from now and that the dream job and Kim will both be in the rear view mirror.  We also know from the flash forwards of this show where Jimmy will go from there and it doesn't look terribly appealing.

 

Intellectually, I know it's only going to be a long dark ride down from here.  I still want to take the ride. 

[editorgrrl]

When Jimmy and Kim were taking their smoke break in the garage and discussing his plans, he said he might buy a home between Santa Fe and ABQ, and "we'd get one of those smoker things." He said "we" not "I," implying that he and Kim would be spending a lot of their nights together—possibly moving in together. Kim had a quick little reaction on her face—hopeful and a little happy, I guess.

Then later she had to pull back with the revelation of the faked video. She was reminded of what Jimmy can be and how she needs to be cautious.

Kim said "we" twice, then Jimmy said it in a mocking tone. To me, Kim looked embarrassed—not hopeful.

Kim: [Talking about horses:] Long ride through the country and then glass of wine on the back patio at sunset.… Oh, we should get one of those smokers. We could just barbecue for days.

Jimmy: Yeah, "we" definitely [exhales cigarette smoke] got to get a smoker. [Awkward pause, then Jimmy sort of chuckles.] All right, well, I got to go to the salon. They're delivering my new company car.

Edited to add there's no way Jimmy McGill would drink a glass of wine on the back patio at sunset after riding a horse. That's Kim's romantic fantasy, and Jimmy's not that guy. Hence his snark.

Edited February 24, 2016 by editorgrrl

[Lurky McLurkerson]

There are things a lawyer might say to a client, which tells the client what sort of "evidence" would greatly help the client's case, without explicitly entering into an agreement to obstruct justice.

 

Yep, this, and I've seen a lot of instances where you have to suggest what you're looking for to a client, not because they've done anything wrong or you're encouraging them to make shit up, but because they need to help you find the materials that prove the case when the facts are disputed.  (Do you have a contract or other written communication that lays out your agreement?  How did you discuss the change in scope?  Do you still have the voicemails?, Is there anyone else who was present when you had this discussion?, etc.)  A lot of people require guidance from their attorney on discovery materials.

 

But there are prohibitions on knowingly presenting false evidence in the NM Code of Professional Responsibility, including that, if you present evidence and later find out it is false, you are ethically required to disclose that as soon as it comes to your attention.

 

I am actually really interested to get more of Kim's backstory.  I haven't really decided how I feel about her and am interested to know more about her.

[Blakeston]

A lawyer can retain plausible deniability with that; "Hey, that's what the client said to me, and I just passed the information along". Participating in the creation of video after the fact, however, and passing it off as the motive for the burglary, leaves no other possible explanation than the lawyer fabricating evidence to obstruct justice.

But in this case, Jimmy knew that the whole story about the robbery being related to squat cobbler videos was a lie. There was no plausible deniability there. Even without the video, it would be a major ethical violation.

[Uncle Benzene]

there's no way Jimmy McGill would drink a glass of wine on the back patio at sunset after riding a horse. That's Kim's romantic fantasy, and Jimmy's not that guy. Hence his snark.

 

"How about some cucumber water and maybe an impromptu pedicure? That work for ya?"

 

In other news, if anybody has any more specific details about that piece of music Chuck was attempting to play on the piano, I'd appreciate it. I must find it on iTunes (or something.) It was beautiful.

 

Edited to add: Yaas! Found it! It's Sicilienne, Op. 78

Edited February 24, 2016 by Uncle Benzene

[Hanahope]

There are plenty of lawyers who went to "crap" law schools, but do exceedingly well because they are natural charmers.  Most end up being big plaintiff's attorneys, but some also are good rainmakers at big firms.  And some get snubbed by those snobbish lawyers that think if its not Top 10, its worthless.  Its a shame that Chuck can't see that Jimmy could actually be good for the firm and encourage him that way.  Chuck appears to be too much influenced by his past with Chuck, where I'm sure he did have to clean up a lot of Jimmy's messes, and see Jimmy get out of other messes simply by spinning a good story and taking a short cut.  Jimmy probably charmed all his school teachers who gave him B's even though he never did homework, whereas Chuck slaved night and day on his homework to get good grades.

 

Yeah, what Jimmy did was an ethics violation, but it would be difficult to prove.  There's definitely going to be more happening with Nacho, Mike and Pryce because Pryce is an idiot when it comes to being subtle about his crimes.  I was almost in shock that all the baseball cards were still there.  So is Pryce supposed to report his "stolen" Hummer to the police?  He must if he's leasing it.  If he did outright buy it, then maybe not.  Of course the police may still watch him and wonder where it went.  Almost have to agree that for Mike's sake, Pryce may have to be quieted.

[ghoulina]

Yeah I picked up on that too. My take is that it allows him to spread the blame around a little for when things go south. I think Howard genuinely likes Jimmy but lacks faith in him.

 

Even if he does have faith in Jimmy (and I think he has much more than Chuck does), it could still be about spreading blame around. Howard wants to be on good terms with Chuck, and he'd rather have Chuck come back to work than eventually decide to be bought out. So it wouldn't be a good idea to let Chuck think that HE (Howard) was really trying to help Jimmy climb the ladder at another prestigious firm. Better make it sound like it was Kim's idea. 

[Bryce Lynch]

But in this case, Jimmy knew that the whole story about the robbery being related to squat cobbler videos was a lie. There was no plausible deniability there. Even without the video, it would be a major ethical violation.

Plausible deniability and innocence are totally different things. Plausible deniability simply means you have a plausible, but not true, story you can tell to keep yourself out of trouble.

In this case it would be plausible for Jimmy to claim that his client lied to him about the squat cobbler story and he was simply passing those claims on to the police. Lawyers unknowingly (and sometimes knowingly) pass on their clients' lies all the time.

If it cannot be proven that the lawyer knew he was passing on lies, he would be in the clear.

If it was discovered that Jimmy helped make a squat cobbler video after the fact he would have no plausible deniability.

Squat cobbler story = unprovable ethical violation.

Making Sqat cobbler video = potentially provable ethical violation and crime.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Bryce Lynch

[Bryce Lynch]

There are plenty of lawyers who went to "crap" law schools, but do exceedingly well because they are natural charmers. Most end up being big plaintiff's attorneys, but some also are good rainmakers at big firms. And some get snubbed by those snobbish lawyers that think if its not Top 10, its worthless. Its a shame that Chuck can't see that Jimmy could actually be good for the firm and encourage him that way. Chuck appears to be too much influenced by his past with Chuck, where I'm sure he did have to clean up a lot of Jimmy's messes, and see Jimmy get out of other messes simply by spinning a good story and taking a short cut. Jimmy probably charmed all his school teachers who gave him B's even though he never did homework, whereas Chuck slaved night and day on his homework to get good grades.

Yeah, what Jimmy did was an ethics violation, but it would be difficult to prove. There's definitely going to be more happening with Nacho, Mike and Pryce because Pryce is an idiot when it comes to being subtle about his crimes. I was almost in shock that all the baseball cards were still there. So is Pryce supposed to report his "stolen" Hummer to the police? He must if he's leasing it. If he did outright buy it, then maybe not. Of course the police may still watch him and wonder where it went. Almost have to agree that for Mike's sake, Pryce may have to be quieted.

Good point about the Hummer. He did mention that he leased it. I took it as a parallel to Walter White, who more than once mentioned attractive lease rates as the reason he was able to buy muscle cars for Junior and himself.

Unless he saved enough drug money to exercise a purchase option (probably over $100k) he is going to need to report it stolen, which could raise more suspicion especially if the same cops hear about it.

I wonder if a leasing company would even lease such a gaudy, customized vehicle. ("School bus for 6 year old pimps." LOL)

I would think it would take a good deal of money to make it ready for resale (paint job, etc.) when it was turned in, and most of the expensive customization might have zero or negative value to the next owner.

I am not sure how much risk Mike is in from Pryce, but Jimmy and especially Nacho might feel compelled to send him to "Belize" at some point

[Blakeston]

Plausible deniability and innocence are totally different things. Plausible deniability simply means you have a plausible, but not true, story you can tell to keep yourself out of trouble.

In this case it would be plausible for Jimmy to claim that his client lied to him about the squat cobbler story and he was simply passing those claims on to the police. Lawyers unknowingly (and sometimes knowingly) pass on their clients' lies all the time.

If it cannot be proven that the lawyer knew he was passing on lies, he would be in the clear.

If it was discovered that Jimmy helped make a squat cobbler video after the fact he would have no plausible deniability.

Squat cobbler story = unprovable ethical violation.

Making Sqat cobbler video = potentially provable ethical violation and crime.

I wasn't referring to whether Jimmy could get away with it. The original question was whether Jimmy obstructed justice simply by lying about the squat cobbling. And I was saying that yes, he did.

But when it comes to plausible deniability, if it was proven that the video was made after the discussion with the police, Jimmy could say he had no idea.

[Tikichick]

From what I know about the law, strictly as someone who works with it daily in a non-lawyer capacity, Jimmy did indeed violate the ethics of professional conduct.  It was fabulously entertaining and one of the best on screen scenes I've ever seen, but it did cross over the line in pretty flagrant ways.  I found it fascinating where exactly they showed Kim drawing the line between amusement and concern in hearing the story.  Notably she seemed far more likely to give toes over the line a pass until she realized the case was Jimmy's, not Davis and Main's.

 

I get the feeling this season may focus a lot on Chuck's story.  Of course Rebecca will turn out to be significant, but I'm guessing we'll leave the season feeling her story explains Chuck, when in fact I think his ultimate explanation will come more in the timeframe we're closing in on Saul.  

[Bryce Lynch]

I wasn't referring to whether Jimmy could get away with it. The original question was whether Jimmy obstructed justice simply by lying about the squat cobbling. And I was saying that yes, he did.

But when it comes to plausible deniability, if it was proven that the video was made after the discussion with the police, Jimmy could say he had no idea.

If it was proven that Jimmy was involved in making the video he would be in big trouble. It might be difficult to prove, but it is something that can potentially be proven.

Proving that Jimmy made up the squat cobbler as opposed to him being told the lie by Pryce would be nearly impossible. It would pretty much take a recording of him confessing or a credible 3rd party saying he confessed to the lie.

I also think that many lawyers probably ignore the semantics about pretending to not know their clients are lying and openly help them come up with lies. So that part might not offend Kim. But, going the next step and manufacturing fake evidence could be a line she cannot condone crossing.

[Bannon]

But in this case, Jimmy knew that the whole story about the robbery being related to squat cobbler videos was a lie. There was no plausible deniability there. Even without the video, it would be a major ethical violation.

You have to prove Jimmy knew the story was a lie. It's just a story, it can come from anywhere, and lawyers repeat stories all the time that people have told them. The video is the creation of a lie.

[Bannon]

I wasn't referring to whether Jimmy could get away with it. The original question was whether Jimmy obstructed justice simply by lying about the squat cobbling. And I was saying that yes, he did.

But when it comes to plausible deniability, if it was proven that the video was made after the discussion with the police, Jimmy could say he had no idea.

It's a lot easier to prove who made a video than it is to prove who concocted a story. For instance, unless Jimmy used a cutout to obtain the pies, whomever sold them to Jimmy could put him in possession of a large number of pies, which is a bit, er, unusual.

[smartymarty]

"There's also a parallel drawn with the Mercedes and the tricked out Hummer. Can someone more metaphorically minded/mooded tease this out?"

And with who is the Greatest Lawyer? Kim probably teasingly meant her, but Jimmy could have thought he was second to Chuck.

"bamboozling people who deserve to be bamboozled"

The police deserve to be bamboozled when investigating a possible drug dealer?

[Bannon]

Multiple crimes were committed. Stealing drugs, selling drugs.

Suppose somebody broke into your home and attacked and robbed you, and then he and his lawyer made a fake, backdated surveillance video or log of some sort to "prove" that he could not have been at your home at the time of the crime. Wouldn't that be fabrication of evidence?

If I were looking for a plot hole, it would be the hidey hole really wasn't evidence of any wrongdoing and could have been explained away in any number of ways. ("The old owner must have put it there.")

The beauty of the squat cobbler is that it explains the Hummer and the recovery of the baseball cards as well.

Still, I think the cops would contact his employer and ask if they could investigate whether he was stealing drugs from them. I would think they would be happy to cooperate.

I think this the most credible way to keep Playuh in the show, until that time that Nacho and/or Mike need to send him to Belize, possibly fast tracking Jimmy to Saulville. The cops pursue the matter with the pharma employer, Playuh gets some pressure applied to him, makes it known that he is getting pressure applied to him, and it is decided that Playuh has to take a trip.

[ZaldamoWilder]

I finally came to this same conclusion about his "illness" as well. It's a total power move to control others. Yes, he is hindered by it, but at the same time, he has manipulated the situation to where he still somehow is part of the law firm, even though he cannot really do the work required for it, and as you say, everyone waits on him. I would be interested to know when this started and when it began.

 

Lol.  It's kind of genius actually.  Ain't a damn thing wrong with Chuck that some attention and a nap wouldn't cure.  Agreeing with the poster who said they would've loved it if Jimmy had snapped open his flip phone in front of Chuck, forcing him to get his Reynolds

Wrap double breasted ass outta dodge faster than anticipated.  Michael McKeon is one helluva'n actor for us not to have any residual Squiggy love for him.

 

Ya'll remember that hair club for men ad where the CEO was all, I'm not just the President, I'm a member.  That's what comes to mind for me about this show.  Vince Gillian et. al  produce this thing as though they're superfans too.  I sat shiva over the end of BB for so long that when this became available on Netflix I binge-watched everything I could get my eyes on like it was my Blue Sky.

 

Price is absolutely going to have to how did Hana put it?  be "quieted".     Any non-badass who doesn't have the good sense to be afraid of Nacho has to go, for everybody's good.  He didn't have any follow up questions when Mike said I'll get your baseball cards back.  No pearl clutch, no wait a minute, you know who has them?  Finally though, rifling through the boxes to make sure his Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays were where they belonged and believing an apology to be in order for the inconvenience?  Bruh.  If I ever met Vince Gillian, I'd give him half my tuna fish sandwich.    I wonder if the Cocobolo people make caskets.

 

Kim doesn't bother me, yet.  Whatever else she's in it for, she wants to keep Jimmy on the straight and narrow for his own good.  I loved how she calmed and recentered him in the conference room when Chuck came to HHM.

 

Mike is a perfect example of what I struggle to articulate about men who are not particularly attractive but sexy as hell. 

 

I'm in the minority about squat cobbling.  I think Odenkirk is the shit and the delivery of those lines is masterful.  Content, meh.  I was trying to figure out why it was bothersome and all I could come up with is that detectives are kind of skilled at, not necessarily uncovering the lie, but knowing when the liar is lying.  And there's one part in his explanation where it's clear he's making it up as he goes along.  He does a telltale thing like he pauses (presumably to determine his level of credibility) and one of the detectives say:  yeah? and he says yeah and furthermore.......  It irked me, truth has no theatrical breaks and they're trained to know that.   Maybe we're supposed to go along with them enjoying his telling it so much that they forgive the method but even a gullible character such as me said self, because I call myself self, that right there is the spot where they needed to sideye him, hard.   I can also see him forgiven many details others would be scrutinized more closely for.  Value of charisma, I spose.   

 

Can somebody tell me why Mike wanted the 10 grand?  Is it for his daughter in law?  Who, by the way, I'd keep my eye on if I were him, bitch is kinda gangster. 

[Bannon]

"There's also a parallel drawn with the Mercedes and the tricked out Hummer. Can someone more metaphorically minded/mooded tease this out?"

And with who is the Greatest Lawyer? Kim probably teasingly meant her, but Jimmy could have thought he was second to Chuck.

"bamboozling people who deserve to be bamboozled"

The police deserve to be bamboozled when investigating a possible drug dealer?

That was an overstatement, especially given that Playuh is stealing the drugs from the employer, but, yes, in our adversarial justice system, it is the defense lawyer's job to bamboozle law enforcement, without actually knowingly putting forth false evidence. Jimmy's already crossed that line in helping Playuh out, but yeah, bamboozling law enforcement is often the ethical role of defense attorneys. 

 

Jimmy doesn't enjoy the con nearly as much with the less powerful, as his interactions with his elderly clients show. Get a loudmouth blowhard in a bar, on the make for his own suckers, and Jimmy has found Nirvana.

[Bannon]

Lol.  It's kind of genius actually.  Ain't a damn thing wrong with Chuck that some attention and a nap wouldn't cure.  Agreeing with the poster who said they would've loved it if Jimmy had snapped open his flip phone in front of Chuck, forcing him to get his Reynolds

Wrap double breasted ass outta dodge faster than anticipated.  Michael McKeon is one helluva'n actor for us not to have any residual Squiggy love for him.

 

Ya'll remember that hair club for men ad where the CEO was all, I'm not just the President, I'm a member.  That's what comes to mind for me about this show.  Vince Gillian et. al  produce this thing as though they're superfans too.  I sat shiva over the end of BB for so long that when this became available on Netflix I binge-watched everything I could get my eyes on like it was my Blue Sky.

 

Price is absolutely going to have to how did Hana put it?  be "quieted".     Any non-badass who doesn't have the good sense to be afraid of Nacho has to go, for everybody's good.  He didn't have any follow up questions when Mike said I'll get your baseball cards back.  No pearl clutch, no wait a minute, you know who has them?  Finally though, rifling through the boxes to make sure his Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays were where they belonged and believing an apology to be in order for the inconvenience?  Bruh.  If I ever met Vince Gillian, I'd give him half my tuna fish sandwich.    I wonder if the Cocobolo people make caskets.

 

Kim doesn't bother me, yet.  Whatever else she's in it for, she wants to keep Jimmy on the straight and narrow for his own good.  I loved how she calmed and recentered him in the conference room when Chuck came to HHM.

 

Mike is a perfect example of what I struggle to articulate about men who are not particularly attractive but sexy as hell. 

 

I'm in the minority about squat cobbling.  I think Odenkirk is the shit and the delivery of those lines is masterful.  Content, meh.  I was trying to figure out why it was bothersome and all I could come up with is that detectives are kind of skilled at, not necessarily uncovering the lie, but knowing when the liar is lying.  And there's one part in his explanation where it's clear he's making it up as he goes along.  He does a telltale thing like he pauses (presumably to determine his level of credibility) and one of the detectives say:  yeah? and he says yeah and furthermore.......  It irked me, truth has no theatrical breaks and they're trained to know that.   Maybe we're supposed to go along with them enjoying his telling it so much that they forgive the method but even a gullible character such as me said self, because I call myself self, that right there is the spot where they needed to sideye him, hard.   I can also see him forgiven many details others would be scrutinized more closely for.  Value of charisma, I spose.   

 

Can somebody tell me why Mike wanted the 10 grand?  Is it for his daughter in law?  Who, by the way, I'd keep my eye on if I were him, bitch is kinda gangster. 

There was an interesting link upthread, which explained that Odenkirk had a big hand in rewriting the squat cobbler scene, from the original script, and what we saw was in large measure a pure Odenkirk production, writing and delivery. The guy's really good. 

[Auntie Anxiety]

 

So is Pryce supposed to report his "stolen" Hummer to the police?  He must if he's leasing it.

My guess is that it wasn't really a lease and Pryce was making that up for the cops.  If it were as lease, Pryce's address wouldn't have been on the title or registration, would it?  I haven't leased a car in decades so I can't remember how it worked.

 

 

Can somebody tell me why Mike wanted the 10 grand?  Is it for his daughter in law?

I assumed it was to help take care of his granddaughter, much like all the money he put aside in BB.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Auntie Anxiety

[lucindabelle]

Thanks for all the info about plausible deniability, particularly Bannon (ipad and can't format properly sorry!). Now I can totally understand why she thought lying to the cops was hilarious but making fake evidence is not,

Just want to add that I don't think jimmy was mocking her "we" at ALL. He was using it too in a hopeful way, where before he'd been sort of hinting at we. I think he was delighted she went there first,

[Bannon]

I just love the fact the Odenkirk has expanded the english language to encompass "squat cobbler". Give the man an Emmy for that alone.

[Hanahope]

I also think that many lawyers probably ignore the semantics about pretending to not know their clients are lying and openly help them come up with lies. So that part might not offend Kim. But, going the next step and manufacturing fake evidence could be a line she cannot condone crossing.

 

Just as an example, I'd lay odds that most, if not all, of OJ's lawyers almost certainly knew OJ was lying out of his ass about not killing Nicole, yet they let him take the stand and say as much under oath.  No one ever brought ethics claims against them (for that case at least).

[RustbeltWriter]

I took Kim's talk with Jimmy about manufacturing evidence to actually be very sweet. She genuinely likes the guy, sees that he's smart but also knows he has a self-destructive tendency. I think she was just attempting to keep him on the right path. I don' know about anyone else, but I've got friends who occasionally need to be told that they may be making a bad decision.

[Umbelina]

Thanks for all of the technical lawyer crap, it was enlightening!

If it was proven that Jimmy was involved in making the video he would be in big trouble. It might be difficult to prove, but it is something that can potentially be proven.

Proving that Jimmy made up the squat cobbler as opposed to him being told the lie by Pryce would be nearly impossible. It would pretty much take a recording of him confessing or a credible 3rd party saying he confessed to the lie.

I also think that many lawyers probably ignore the semantics about pretending to not know their clients are lying and openly help them come up with lies. So that part might not offend Kim. But, going the next step and manufacturing fake evidence could be a line she cannot condone crossing.

Well, the biggest danger is Playah himself. 

 

Anyone puts even the slightest pressure on him when Jimmy isn't around?  Or even if he gets angry at Jimmy later because of the loss of his Hummer?  Or the insurance people investigate, because yeah, Pryce is exactly stupid enough to put in a claim?  Playuh will roll on Jimmy faster than that Mercedes can go at top speed on a straightaway.

 

I hope Jimmy told him not to talk to a damn soul without Jimmy being present.

[Bannon]

Thanks for all of the technical lawyer crap, it was enlightening!

Well, the biggest danger is Playah himself. 

 

Anyone puts even the slightest pressure on him when Jimmy isn't around?  Or even if he gets angry at Jimmy later because of the loss of his Hummer?  Or the insurance people investigate, because yeah, Pryce is exactly stupid enough to put in a claim?  Playuh will roll on Jimmy faster than that Mercedes can go at top speed on a straightaway.

 

I hope Jimmy told him not to talk to a damn soul without Jimmy being present.

The more I think about it, the more certain I am that Nacho telling Playah that their dealings were over was foreshadowing Nacho eventually deciding that Playah's dealings with everything need to be over. I'm just not sure to what degree Mike and Jimmy will be aware of it ahead of time.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Bannon

[Umbelina]

Bannon, I put something in the speculation thread, that all this talk prompted.  I think it fits.

[Clanstarling]

I'm loving all the intelligent observations here!  One of mine:  Howard makes a point of telling Chuck that KIM was instrumental in Jimmy getting the job at the law firm.  I'm curious as to his motivation in that regard.

As soon as he made that point, I started worrying for Kim and her partner track position.

 

I'm in the minority about squat cobbling.  I think Odenkirk is the shit and the delivery of those lines is masterful.  Content, meh.  I was trying to figure out why it was bothersome and all I could come up with is that detectives are kind of skilled at, not necessarily uncovering the lie, but knowing when the liar is lying.  And there's one part in his explanation where it's clear he's making it up as he goes along.  He does a telltale thing like he pauses (presumably to determine his level of credibility) and one of the detectives say:  yeah? and he says yeah and furthermore.......  It irked me, truth has no theatrical breaks and they're trained to know that.   Maybe we're supposed to go along with them enjoying his telling it so much that they forgive the method but even a gullible character such as me said self, because I call myself self, that right there is the spot where they needed to sideye him, hard.   I can also see him forgiven many details others would be scrutinized more closely for.  Value of charisma, I spose.

I thought (Odenkirk's inventive names aside) that it might actually be something that happens. Based primarily on watching United States of Tara, where the daughter had a webcam business doing essentially the same thing - only with cake (and maybe other things, IIRC).

[shapeshifter]

I thought (Odenkirk's inventive names aside) that it might actually be something that happens. Based primarily on watching United States of Tara, where the daughter had a webcam business doing essentially the same thing - only with cake (and maybe other things, IIRC).

All the better for plausible deniability, my dears.

Perhaps Jimmy watches too while sipping cucumber water.

[Ohwell]

I took Kim's talk with Jimmy about manufacturing evidence to actually be very sweet. She genuinely likes the guy, sees that he's smart but also knows he has a self-destructive tendency. I think she was just attempting to keep him on the right path. I don' know about anyone else, but I've got friends who occasionally need to be told that they may be making a bad decision.

So she thinks it's perfectly okay for her (and him) to scam that investment guy out of drinks and meals and she has no problems with "ethics," but she has a problem with SquatCobblergate?  Honestly, I don't see her as being "on the right path" any more than Jimmy is.  Sure, from a legal standpoint scamming meals and drinks don't compare with fabricating evidence, but I just don't see that she's any "better" than Jimmy because she clearly enjoyed the scam.   

[Umbelina]

Well, one could get Jimmy disbarred, as has been pointed out quite well in this thread. 

 

Had Jimmy just hinted to the guy that having a video like that around isn't a bad idea, rather than helping him make one?  Kim may not have reacted as adamantly. 

[Clanstarling]

Well, I think it's mostly that one was recreational, as a private person, and not at all illegal. It's a more expensive version of going to a real estate (or whatever) sales pitch and eating the free dinner while never intending to buy anything.

The other was in a professional capacity, a profession with strict ethical guidelines, unethical and from what I'm understanding from the lawyers in the forum, illegal. I totally understand Kim being upset by it - though I'm not entirely sure why his lies to the cops didn't bother her.

Edited February 24, 2016 by clanstarling

[Ohwell]

Well, I think it's mostly that one was recreational, as a private person, and not at all illegal. It's a more expensive version of going to a real estate (or whatever) sales pitch and eating the free dinner while never intending to buy anything.

 

I said from a legal standpoint it didn't compare with what Jimmy did.  Meaning, I didn't think it was illegal, if that clarifies things.  

 

My point is, though, she still liked the thrill of it all.  

[shapeshifter]

I'm not entirely sure why his lies to the cops didn't bother her.

I don't recall, but did Jimmy begin his tale to the cops with "hypothetically speaking..."?

[editorgrrl]

I don't recall, but did Jimmy begin his tale to the cops with "hypothetically speaking..."?

Nope: "We all have our secrets, don't we? And who among us is without sin? But those sins aren't all of the criminal variety, and neither are Mr. Wormald's, okay? They are, however, very private."

[Bryce Lynch]

The more I think about it, the more certain I am that Nacho telling Playah that their dealings were over was foreshadowing Nacho eventually deciding that Playah's dealings with everything need to be over. I'm just not sure to what degree Mike and Jimmy will be aware of it ahead of time.

I agree that Nacho will eventually kill Playuh.

He actually said "Our business is concluded." I think that may have been a nod to Gus Fring.

When Fring met the cousins in the desert he used the same phrase when he warned them that they were not to kill Walter White until his business with him "has concluded" meaning when he no longer had any use for him. Nacho delivered the line with a Fring-like quiet, menacing intensity

[Bannon]

I agree that Nacho will eventually kill Playuh.

He actually said "Our business is concluded." I think that may have been a nod to Gus Fring.

When Fring met the cousins in the desert he used the same phrase when he warned them that they were not to kill Walter White until his business with him "has concluded" meaning when he no longer had any use for him. Nacho delivered the line with a Fring-like quiet, menacing intensity

Michael Mando has been terrific as Nacho. The scene with Banks outside the upholstery business was really played well. Facial expressions, body language, the whole thing.

[Starchild]

It was funny how mad [Chuck] got hearing that Jimmy was working at Davis and Main. He was literally seething inside. "As what?"

Howard may or may not have ulterior motives for having this discussion with Chuck, but man I loved his expression when Chuck asked that. It was like "Seriously, bitch, still with this?"

[tankgirl73]

Finally - Anyone know of any significance of the name "Rebecca Bais" on the sheet music, or of the music Chuck was attempting to play at the beginning?  Thank you.

 

 

The Story Sync notes for the episode highlight the fact that the piece Chuck is playing "was commissioned for the opera Pelleas and Melisande, which tells the story of a man who discovers that his wife is in love with his brother." It's also probably significant that the song is a duet, and now Chuck is playing half of it all alone. I wonder if Rebecca Bois is the person who used to play the violin or flute part alongside him.

 

The suggestion seems to be that Rebecca is some woman who used to be in Chuck's life and now she's not -- and that Jimmy may have done something to get between them?

In other news, if anybody has any more specific details about that piece of music Chuck was attempting to play on the piano, I'd appreciate it. I must find it on iTunes (or something.) It was beautiful.

 

Edited to add: Yaas! Found it! It's Sicilienne, Op. 78

 

You'll need a touch more info -- you're both sort right but it's also important that it's by the composer Gabriel Fauré. There's more than one Pelleas opera and there's a gazillion Siciliennes.  This is the one in question -- already there's a lot of comments saying they came there thanks to Chuck!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Y0uQLgriA

 

I've usually heard this performed on the flute (and I've played the piano part a gazillion times). Also, the Pelleas it was used for was not an opera anyway, but a play. Debussy wrote a Pelleas opera, and he was also a French impressionist composer, but it's a different setting. Anyway, the idea of the girl falling for the husband's brother is accurate. It would indeed be interesting if this is somehow a symbol of Chuck and Jimmy's past.

 

As a professional classical pianist, I was really pleased that the guy was actually playing that piano. Too often, music performance is "lip synced" -- or 'finger synced' -- and really, really, badly. Even on shows like Mozart in the Jungle, which is ABOUT professional classical musicians. They at least usually hold their instruments correctly even when their fingers are wildly wiggling randomly and completely disjointed from the the music they're supposedly playing (and don't even get me started about this supposed world-class conductor who conducts like a high school kid stuck in front of band class for the first time). Or the music is wildly chopped up and re-arranged (again I'm looking at you, MitJ).

Not here. This was the authentic piano part for the sicilienne (which indeed is a favourite of mine) and being played live. <3 <3 <3

 

It did bug me though that his slip, where he'd stop, was so obviously a deliberate splat and not a finger slip. When you make a mistake when playing a piece, it doesn't sound like that. It's like if you're trying to say "I went to the store to buy spaghetti" and your tongue slips and you say "I went to the store to buy pasghetti"... that's a slip. But his was more like "I went to the store to buy GZORNENPLAT".

 

Also, the worst thing you can do when you make a mistake is go back to the beginning, especially without even fixing it first! Maybe that was the point -- that Chuck just expects everything to be perfect without having to work at it. But it was still annoying.

 

Oh and it's not quite accurate to call this a "duet"-- a duet is two equal voices. This is for a solo instrument, with a piano accompaniment. Even though the piano is very clearly very important, in music terms it's considered the "back up band" for the soloist. But that's just being picky about the technical terminology. The partnership between a soloist and their pianist is a deep and even and intimate one. At its best it's definitely a collaboration, working together as equal partners. But just as often -- the soloist is THE BOSS and determines the interpretative decisions, and the job of the pianist is to fulfill the soloist's wishes for the performance, even if they'd prefer to play it differently.

 

Maybe there's a symbolism in that too...

[Irlandesa]

My point is, though, she still liked the thrill of it all.  

Yes she did which is why I never read "you're a bad person" into her "you can't tell me this stuff."  I think of it like speeding.  Some like to go a little over because it feels like you're going faster but probably not enough to have severe consequences.  But once you get over 10 mph faster, the consequences rise significantly if you get caught.  And, depending on how fast you're going, it can start to feel quite a bit more dangerous and not comfortable. I think Jimmy is comfortable with it and Kim isn't.  I think where he'll lose her is once he starts speeding through construction and school zones because that?  Just. Not. Done.

[Dev F]

You'll need a touch more info -- you're both sort right but it's also important that it's by the composer Gabriel Fauré. There's more than one Pelleas opera and there's a gazillion Siciliennes.  This is the one in question -- already there's a lot of comments saying they came there thanks to Chuck!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Y0uQLgriA

 

I've usually heard this performed on the flute (and I've played the piano part a gazillion times). Also, the Pelleas it was used for was not an opera anyway, but a play. Debussy wrote a Pelleas opera, and he was also a French impressionist composer, but it's a different setting. Anyway, the idea of the girl falling for the husband's brother is accurate. It would indeed be interesting if this is somehow a symbol of Chuck and Jimmy's past.

 

Awesome, thanks for the extra info!

 

As a professional classical pianist, I was really pleased that the guy was actually playing that piano.

 

And with good reason. Mike McKean is an accomplished musician who's composed and performed songs on various instruments and across multiple genres for projects like This Is Spinal Tap and A Mighty Wind.

 

It did bug me though that his slip, where he'd stop, was so obviously a deliberate splat and not a finger slip. When you make a mistake when playing a piece, it doesn't sound like that. It's like if you're trying to say "I went to the store to buy spaghetti" and your tongue slips and you say "I went to the store to buy pasghetti"... that's a slip. But his was more like "I went to the store to buy GZORNENPLAT".

 

Ha, that's a great way of putting it! But I wonder if the idea was supposed to be less that he was suddenly flubbing a note than that he was focusing really hard on keeping in time with the metronome and would give up in frustration every time he felt himself starting to slip. I may be imagining things based on what I expected the scene to be about, but it did seem like there were a few places before each flub where he he struggling to keep in time.

[Granimal]

Interesting. I interpreted the cup holder scene totally backwards. I admit that I haven't seen episode one yet, or the end of season 2, or paid much attention to the Kim/Jimmy relationship. I figured Kim fell for the seductive close-to-danger, but not too close to danger charm and chance of Slippin Jimmy, and that this James McGill wouldn't do it for her. I do think Kim wants Jimmy to succeed and be a successful lawyer for a big firm, yet James in the suburbs is not who she "fell" for. And Saul is Jimmy times ten, too much danger for Kim. I think like Kim enjoys the middle, the gray area- not too boring and predictable, yet not too far over the edge that their lives could potentially be ruined. So for some reason I interpreted this as being that James McGill, the lawyer with a nice company car wouldn't fit with Kim, even if that's what she thinks she wants. Surely Kim could've settled down with some moderately successful lawyer in the suburbs by now if she wanted to, but she hasn't and has been drawn to Jimmy for a reason.

(He is charming as hell, btw.) However, the previous interpretations make much more sense (glad I read this site), and I now have an excuse to go watch the second half of last season!

 

I think I'm the only person that doesn't hate Chuck. I certainly don't like Chuck, or find him to be an enjoyable presence, but for some reason, I empathize with him and find him to be a relatable character. Yes, Chuck is a pompous, condescending control-freak, who has probably been jealous of Jimmy for his entire life. I have no words of defense for him, yet I find myself strangely sympathetic. (And I'm not a particularly empathetic person.) His life lacks any real enjoyment, and I don't think even he can control that. Like the psychiatric cliche- he lacks that particular tool in his toolbox.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Granimal

[shapeshifter]

tankgirl73, I <3 your entire post! I may just have to try this: http://s2.imslp.org/images/thumb/pdfs/bf/dbac1eb3c34cae793fab9f720451c353220b9596.png

Ha, that's a great way of putting it! But I wonder if the idea was supposed to be less that he was suddenly flubbing a note than that he was focusing really hard on keeping in time with the metronome and would give up in frustration every time he felt himself starting to slip. I may be imagining things based on what I expected the scene to be about, but it did seem like there were a few places before each flub where he he struggling to keep in time.

The first flub he was quite cool about it. In my mind I contrasted it to my then-teenage daughter running off the stage from hitting one wrong note (how I wish I could lay in bed now, 20 some years later, and listen to her "practice" in the next room!). But then, IIRC, his second flub he banged his head against the piano in comic contrast to the first--and revealing the true level of frustration of the character.

Upthread someone mentioned wanting to, I think, hit McKeon in the face, which made me think of his perfect casting, because, not only does he look like he could be Odenkirk's older brother, but he is familiar to the audience in a variety of roles in which we do want to at least slap him. I recall feeling that way while watching an old X-Files in which he and Mulder had switched bodies.

ETA: I have to smile evertime I see the title of this thread because I had originally assumed the episode would involve shoes.

Edited February 25, 2016 by shapeshifter

[Milburn Stone]

On the one hand, I think Kim really does want Jimmy to succeed.  However, the thing that bugs me about her is that I think she wants him to succeed for her, in order for him to be a suitable mate.  I don't know how much of Jimmy's backstory she knows, i.e., Slippin' Jimmy, but she does know him well enough to know he doesn't play by the rules.  So, if she doesn't like him the way he is now, she should just leave him alone romantically and stay his friend if she wants to, but don't give him any hope of a future together.   So yeah, in sum, she bugs the shit out of me. 

 

I'm more sympathetic to Kim than that. The true sadness (bordering on tragedy) in that scene, for me, was what Kim left unsaid. She said, "I can't hear about this kind of thing anymore." (Or words to that effect.) But what she's silently beginning to realize, and sadly face, is that the problem is much bigger than her hearing about such things; she's facing that a Jimmy McGill who can't tell her about these things anymore is a Jimmy McGill who will have nothing to say to her at all. Because ethically questionable shenanigans are when Jimmy McGill feels most alive.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[jnymph]

Such a great post and observation. I, too, thought about the fact that the cup holder was indicative of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole type pf thing. 

"Must be metric."

 

Hee.

[nodorothyparker]

I think I'm the only person that doesn't hate Chuck. I certainly don't like Chuck, or find him to be an enjoyable presence, but for some reason, I empathize with him and find him to be a relatable character. Yes, Chuck is a pompous, condescending control-freak, who has probably been jealous of Jimmy for his entire life. I have no words of defense for him, yet I find myself strangely sympathetic. (And I'm not a particularly empathetic person.) His life lacks any real enjoyment, and I don't think even he can control that. Like the psychiatric cliche- he lacks that particular tool in his toolbox.

 

I don't hate Chuck either.  I don't particularly like him, but as I've said before a small part of me could understand where he was coming from with his "you're not a real lawyer" haranguing of Jimmy, and I think he's a fascinating character study.  This is a man by whom by every societal measure we go by was a resounding success.  His name is on the building.  The world should be his oyster.  I believe Jimmy said in one of the early episodes that it would cost HHM more than $17 million to buy him out.  But he's such a monumental control freak that he's crippled himself to living little better than a reclusive aluminum foil clad squatter in his own home, complete with ice chest groceries and the fuse boxes ripped out.  What possible enjoyment is he getting out of his life?

Edited February 25, 2016 by nodorothyparker