S02.E05: Rebecca

[monagatuna]

But regardless, I agree that shutting her out of a client task that SHE brought in really, really sucks and is a poor business decision on Howard's part. I still think though, with or without Chuck's intervention, Kim will be back doing her normal work soon.

As much as Howard can rest on his daddy's laurels, there is something to this. If Kim is worried about being blacklisted for suing (or even quitting) HHM because of her mistreatment...the legal profession is small and insular, and people talk. Her colleagues, even if they're reluctant to speak up directly about her abuse (Jimmy excepted), are probably talking. Howard is jeopardizing HHM's reputation himself by mistreating associates as a way of petty revenge. 

 

I enjoyed seeing Kim hustle almost as much as I enjoyed seeing Jimmy's hustle (I just rewatched most of Season 1 and his public defender montage is one of my favorite scenes of the whole season). I don't love Kim as a character, but she's growing on me, and as a professional who's had affections for someone who acts like Jimmy sometimes, I can sympathize. She sees his potential and knows BigLaw doesn't fit his personality, but she cares for him and is trying to carve him into a round peg anyway, so that he'll be "appropriate" for her. There's no way it will work, and she knows it. He'll never fit into that buttoned-up, Hamlindigo blue life, and Slippin' Jimmy will never be right for her.

 

That court receptionist, though--bribed by stuffed animals? Her expression changed a full 180 degrees when she sees that damn thing. For someone as sour as she can be when she sees Jimmy--she clearly doesn't love him--it's strange to see her swayed so easily by a toy she can probably get herself for $4.

[Tatum]

 

ETA:  I'm still noodling this statement of mine because it's so debatable.  Part of me would also be tempted to say, "Don't do a God damned thing.  Your actions caused this mess now go sit in the corner and be quiet."  But no part of me would say, "You caused this so I'm responsible for fixing my predicament which was a direct result of your behaviour."  That just doesn't quite compute in my head.  Of course, another way of looking at it is that Jimmy did what he did and Kim wasn't savvy enough to see something smelled -- and that's what she's punishing herself for.

 

I think that last sentence is exactly it. Yes, it was shitty of Jimmy to go behind his boss's back when Kim just got done telling him any questionable move he made would have consequences for her. Yes, it was shitty that he wasn't honest with her. But Kim is a smart lawyer with a natural bullshit detector and I think she really beats herself up when she misses something.

 

I like Kim, but I think she made a HUGE mistake in pushing for Jimmy for that particular law firm. They appear to be even more straitlaced and buttoned up than HHM and there is no way Jimmy was ever going to be a good fit with them. Really, I don't see why Kim didn't lobby to take the job herself when it came up.

[RCharter]

But there really isn't any way for him to fix it for her. His solution was to sue her employer, which is impractical for the reasons she stated. I do think she knew where he was going with his offer to leave the law if it meant getting Chuck to intervene on her behalf with Howard, and she was saying she's not going to consider that a sacrifice on his part since he doesn't really like what he's doing and she doesn't want to be his convenient excuse for quitting.

 

I also wondered the whole episode why she didn't just spend the time cold calling for a job for herself rather than clients for her firm. I read the comments here about Howard likely not giving her a recommendation or a reference which makes sense, but (and I don't know how things work in the legal world) I work in finance and there's no way I'd let my current boss know I was job searching, so doesn't it stand to reason that any prospective employer Kim talked to wouldn't expect a recommendation from Howard? Maybe things are different in the legal world. I would think though that Kim had a strong enough record and enough contacts to make a lateral move somewhere.

So...it may work different in different cities/metro areas.  However, from what I understand of big law work out here -- you get in as an associate, after a set amount of time you're either on partner track or you are politely shown the door.  Very politely.  I don't think anyone is looking to outright fire anyone if they don't have to.  But at that point where its been made clear that they really no longer want you there than you can and should be out looking for another job.  And so the recommendation shouldn't be an issue at that point, because the firm just wants to get rid of you.  But not totally screw you in case you end up becoming someone important in the future.  People refer to that time as "the runway," because it gives you time to find that sweet landing.  

 

But, I think, especially in a world as small as big law, you're likely going to line up another job from personal connections if you want to leave early.  But they are going to want to know why you want to quit, and at best could put out feelers as to what the situation is.  Saying that you aren't being treated fairly is probably not the tack you would want to use, because no big law firm really treats anyone fairly, IMO.  And does Kim want to go into explaining a story that she wouldn't even explain to her own employer?  She could make a lateral move I suppose, but I think it would just be a hard sell for her.  When faced with the question of why she wants to leave HHM, what does she say?  And is the big law community in NM small enough that the story is already out about her having done something crappy enough to land her back in doc review?  Does another firm want to take on an associate that may or may not have made such a poor judgment call, or will they pass in favor of another candidate?  Does anyone really like her enough to stick their neck out if she is someone who has shown poor judgment?  Most of her calls seem to be to people she sort of tangentially knew from ABA mixers and what not.

Edited March 16, 2016 by RCharter

[RustbeltWriter]

I wonder if Howard acts like such an ass to Kim because he resents Chuck? Howard makes all these special arrangements for Chuck to work, get him groceries and accommodates his odd behavior by having the staff hide their electronics. It must be frustrating as hell to know that if Chuck was just an associate he could push him out the door. Chuck contributes but I wonder if Howard hangs back a little and lets him just to stroke his ego. Whatever friendship they have, Chuck's current circumstances must put an enormous strain on it.

[shapeshifter]

I think Kim is being treated like a naughty child for doing what?  Not making a call late at night about a commercial that ran.  In Colorado.  Once.   Plus, she didn't make excuses.  And now brings in business.  And is still treated shabbily.  Big overreaction.  I would rather work at the DMV than one of these 'respected' law firms.

I figured she wanted to get out of the basement before applying for work at another firm--which I hope she does. Of course, it this show was like The Good Wife, I'd expect her to make partner at HHM and then oust Howard.

[RCharter]

I think that last sentence is exactly it. Yes, it was shitty of Jimmy to go behind his boss's back when Kim just got done telling him any questionable move he made would have consequences for her. Yes, it was shitty that he wasn't honest with her. But Kim is a smart lawyer with a natural bullshit detector and I think she really beats herself up when she misses something.

 

I like Kim, but I think she made a HUGE mistake in pushing for Jimmy for that particular law firm. They appear to be even more straitlaced and buttoned up than HHM and there is no way Jimmy was ever going to be a good fit with them. Really, I don't see why Kim didn't lobby to take the job herself when it came up.

The fact that Kim pushed the opportunity for Jimmy is part of what makes me like Kim.  She clearly thinks the job at D&M is great, and its partner track, and she wants that big firm lifestyle, she wants that partner lifestyle.  She probably can't imagine someone who doesn't want that lifestyle, so giving that opportunity to Jimmy and advocating for him to get it instead of trying to position herself for it was really neat because I see it as a sacrifice on her part.  I do think that she wants Jimmy to be better so he can be better for her, but a woman who strongly declares that "I save myself" is not the sort of woman that I imagine wants to be taken care of by some rich attorney.  So she threw it to Jimmy just to make him better because she thinks he is worth such an opportunity.

[Tatum]

The fact that Kim pushed the opportunity for Jimmy is part of what makes me like Kim.  She clearly thinks the job at D&M is great, and its partner track, and she wants that big firm lifestyle, she wants that partner lifestyle.  She probably can't imagine someone who doesn't want that lifestyle, so giving that opportunity to Jimmy and advocating for him to get it instead of trying to position herself for it was really neat because I see it as a sacrifice on her part.  I do think that she wants Jimmy to be better so he can be better for her, but a woman who strongly declares that "I save myself" is not the sort of woman that I imagine wants to be taken care of by some rich attorney.  So she threw it to Jimmy just to make him better because she thinks he is worth such an opportunity.

 

I think it's great she wanted to help Jimmy. But I don't think Davis & Main is a very good fit for him. Actually, if Chuck weren't getting so re-involved with HHM, I think Jimmy would have been a good fit there. I bet Howard would have looked the other way when Jimmy bribed the court clerk. As obsessed as he is with keeping up with appearances, I think Howard is more open to bending the rules and a fluid set of business ethics than Kim or Chuck is. But Davis and Main is very by the book, as evidenced with Erin telling Jimmy he needs to have two spaces after each period and a number of other nitpicky things. I just think someone as free spirited as Jimmy was bound to feel stifled by this corporate culture, even if he was committed to changing his personal code of ethics (which was a tall order anyways).

 

Kim basically tied herself to someone she can't really trust and while she had very good intentions, I don't think it was a smart move on her part. A recommendation to a more laid back kind of law firm would have gone over better. I realize that wasn't an option at the time but Kim's decision to help him may have long lasting ramifications for her career beyond this one incident.

[ghoulina]

It's not about being a mind reader. She knows Cliff enough to be surprised he agreed to the commercial. She knows Jimmy lies.  if I know someone is both broke and a kleptomanic, and they show up with a brand new iPad, it's not me being a mind reader wondering if they stole it. It's using logic based on my own experiences with that person and my knowledge of their situation. And it doesn't have to hold up in court. Howard isn't suing her. He's sticking her with shitty work. Which, fair or unfair, is his prerogative as her boss.

ETA: My original argument wasn't that she should have known Jimmy would air a commercial without his boss's knowledge. My argument was that Kim should have known (or at least suspected) that Jimmy was not being truthful when he told her Cliff had approved the commercial. At that point, Kim had a very narrow window to appeal to Howard and exonerate herself.

 

Yes, Kim knows that Jimmy can be a bit bendy with the rules. But I don't think she should have immediately assumed Jimmy was being untruthful about Cliff. The other thing she knows about Jimmy is how charming and persuasive he can be. So I'm sure she thought that he wheeled and dealed and actually talked Cliff into airing the commercial. 

I wonder if Howard acts like such an ass to Kim because he resents Chuck? Howard makes all these special arrangements for Chuck to work, get him groceries and accommodates his odd behavior by having the staff hide their electronics. It must be frustrating as hell to know that if Chuck was just an associate he could push him out the door. Chuck contributes but I wonder if Howard hangs back a little and lets him just to stroke his ego. Whatever friendship they have, Chuck's current circumstances must put an enormous strain on it.

 

You might be onto something here. I could see that - Howard taking his frustrations with Chuck out on Kim, because he can. 

[attica]

And, on that theme, do the lawyers in Doc Review really work with no overhead lights and just table lights?

Lots of shows/movies do this; darken the offices to demonstrate it's off-hours. Which, in my experience in corporate life, doesn't happen. All the lights stay on until the overnight cleaning staff turn them off when they leave.

 

While it came across like "Fetch me some coffee, woman!", I don't think he intended it that way. I don't think he even wanted coffee. It was just an excuse to have a conversation with Kim so he could trash Jimmy to her.

He was being a weasel, not a sexist.

Oh, gosh: why not both?!  The thing is, sexism is often folded right into weaselhood, part and parcel. It's how you get away with being a weasel -- dump on the women who work for you.  Way back when I got my first management gig, we used to have regional meetings that rotated through all the offices. I was the only woman among the five managers in the region. Now, I don't drink coffee, never have. But working a coffee maker isn't hard, and when I hosted my first time, I made a pot. The next meeting was at another manager's office, and the regional manager asked me to make the coffee. Not my office, not my coffee pot, not my fucking job. But I had the tits, so I guess I'm supposed to make the coffee! Well, I at least had the presence of mind to demur. Sorry, fellas; I don't drink coffee, I have no idea how a coffee machine works! Gracious! I'm afraid I'll break something! They couldn't chide me for ignorance since correcting me would demonstrate that they were perfectly capable of working the coffee maker, and thus perfectly able to tend to that task, so they didn't ever chide me for ignorance. And I haven't made coffee in the 30 years since.  All of which is a long winded way of saying that scene put my shoulders right up around my ears.

 

$5 grand seems like paltry fee for perjury. I bet Mike can do better than that.

[Tatum]

That's what I thought about the $5,000! That's peanuts for the hassle Mike would be dealing with. Loosen those purse strings, Hector!

[knaankos]

Lots of shows/movies do this; darken the offices to demonstrate it's off-hours. Which, in my experience in corporate life, doesn't happen. All the lights stay on until the overnight cleaning staff turn them off when they leave.

Oh, gosh: why not both?! The thing is, sexism is often folded right into weaselhood, part and parcel. It's how you get away with being a weasel -- dump on the women who work for you. Way back when I got my first management gig, we used to have regional meetings that rotated through all the offices. I was the only woman among the five managers in the region. Now, I don't drink coffee, never have. But working a coffee maker isn't hard, and when I hosted my first time, I made a pot. The next meeting was at another manager's office, and the regional manager asked me to make the coffee. Not my office, not my coffee pot, not my fucking job. But I had the tits, so I guess I'm supposed to make the coffee! Well, I at least had the presence of mind to demur. Sorry, fellas; I don't drink coffee, I have no idea how a coffee machine works! Gracious! I'm afraid I'll break something! They couldn't chide me for ignorance since correcting me would demonstrate that they were perfectly capable of working the coffee maker, and thus perfectly able to tend to that task, so they didn't ever chide me for ignorance. And I haven't made coffee in the 30 years since. All of which is a long winded way of saying that scene put my shoulders right up around my ears.

$5 grand seems like paltry fee for perjury. I bet Mike can do better than that.

Except Chuck has done the same thing to jimmy mutiple times with water and tea.

[ShadowFacts]

Except Chuck has done the same thing to jimmy mutiple times with water and tea.

 

I think that at the end of that scene Chuck asks Kim if there's any more coffee.  At that point it's already been made, they didn't have K Cups in 2002, so he is in essence asking her to fetch some.  Seems like the writers were doubling down.  It rubbed me the wrong way.

[Misstify]

Me too. They never referenced it. We never saw it. We just heard it.

That was great. We just kept hearing a crinkly sound whenever Chuck moved.

[Umbelina]

I totally agree that Howard is one of the weakestly drawn "villains" I've seen in a long time and I'm frustrated with Kim's "I need this job" so she suffers in the basement making coffee for cliche jerks.  I'm getting so frustrated I used the word twice.

 

But, I don't see where we're getting the idea something happens to Rebecca?  Did I miss a line or a scene somewhere?  We just met her and there weren't any ominous strings or dun-dun-duns that I heard or saw.  As a matter of fact, I felt she was a non-event given they named the whole episode after her.  Perhaps it's just that they go on a joy ride and sleep together?  Clearly, Chuck and Rebecca's love life is failing -- that was made abundantly clear.  I didn't miss that point.  

Yeah, the Rebecca stuff is ONLY because Chuck still wears his wedding ring, and there is no sign of Rebecca anywhere.  The rest is just speculation based on how much she really came to life with Jimmy was there, showed a completely different side of herself.  (Which I'd obviously appreciate in a few more characters on this show.  It doesn't take much to show who people are.)

 

The interactions between Erin and Jimmy are so hilarious that I hope he gets stuck with his babysitter for quite some time. 

 

 

 

 

I don't know what you mean about non-plot point, but while I don't love Howard, losing him would definitely effect things. Big time. For one, he has long been the "heavy" for Chuck. If he was gone, who would do Chuck's dirty work? Who would head the firm? Chuck would have to step up? Could he? Chuck would have to make those tough calls and risk people not liking him. And Kim. It might actually make things better for her. She might soar up the ladder. What about Davis and Main? The guy who pushed for them to hire Jimmy is gone, would anyone care if they sacked him right away? I think there would be a multitude of repercussions to him dying. I would care, not necessarily about him personally, but about how it would effect everyone else. 

She's the very definition of a plot point right now.  She only exists in Jimmy's world, to move Jimmy's plot forward.  Ditto Howard.  He existed to make Jimmy's life hell for Chuck, now he exists to make Kim's life hell, because she's Jimmy's friend, oh, and he exists to take over the care and feeding of Howard.  If he has another existence, or even a hobby, we haven't seen it.  In 1 1/2 years of a great deal of screen time, I have no idea who this guy is outside of what he does for Jimmy, Kim's, or Howard's story.

 

One thing I really like both about this show and BB is there are NO simple characters. This is a show that is very character driven, not plot driven. Even sadistic sociopaths like Tuco and Nacho have softer sides that they show with their families. I don't think either Chuck or Howard are merely villains in this story- they have their reasons for what they do and not all of them are purely selfish or malicious (although they are capable of both).

 

 

I love Erin's character. Jimmy: OK, first thing tomorrow morning then? Erin (who is technically below Jimmy on the food chain): Well, I was thinking we'd just get it done right now. I mean, she is so firm while still sounding polite and deferential to him. I hope her character sticks around.

 

Also, Jimmy's "bribe" at the courthouse was hilarious. Just the fact that he knows these things about people (like their attachment to beanie babies) is hilarious.

My problem is that most of the characters ARE simple, they are not well drawn in any way.  Only the BB crossovers have any depth or life, and of course, CHUCK, who alternately annoys or bores the shit out of me because it's just endlessly repeating like a broken washing machine that won't get off the spin cycle.  I don't care how good an actor he is, I want him DEAD, not the actor, the character, just so I won't have to endure any more of the same old same old same old crap anymore. 

 

I enjoyed Jimmy's little thing with the beanie baby court lady.  I know more about her than I do about Howard.  In one 30 second scene.

 

Erin, hopefully, she will become a more complex person as well.  You don't need screen time to do that, you do need thought and the writing.  As it stands right now, another plot point, only there to piss off Jimmy's character and probably help a bit to prompt him into becoming Saul.

 

What's hilarious is Jimmy will be the cure for Chuck, yet. He was happy sitting at home in the dark, wouldn't begin to step a foot to get his own paper much less ever stagger into the office...this is supreme effort on his part, solely to get back at Jimmy. He let Jimmy or whoever cater to him. How long would HHM continue to support him? I know law firms keep names on the doors long after founders/partners retire and it is the clout of the name, but if the clients know Chuck is cuckoo for cocoa puffs and he no longers brings in the dollars then he'd be out. 

Yeah, that bothers me too.  The whole cuckoo for cocoa puffs WOULD already be out there in the community.  Too many people know about it.  We know the firm can't afford to buy him out so they keep him, but there is no way in hell the other people in that firm don't gossip in the bars at night about that fruitcake that makes them turn off the lights and remove their cell phones.  NO chance, even if it's just pillow talk with a girlfriend or wife, who tells her friend, who tells her new boyfriend, who has an uncle in a different law firm.

 

Of course, that would require these other people actually have lives, or exist outside of plot points for Howard and Jimmy.  That's right, they don't.

 

I certainly don't think that Jimmy had anything to do with Rebecca's death or her divorcing Chuck(whichever it turns out to be). Remember that in season 1, Chuck and Jimmy were on relatively good terms. Even if it was all a mirage. If jimmy has been directly responsible for something to do with Rebecca how could chuck even pretend to like Jimmy at that point? They would not have been on such good terms in season 1.

That's a good point.  That said, Rebecca is gone, and they are amping up the Chuck has reasons to hate Jimmy's guts, Chuck is a good guy! stuff, so using Rebecca to further that, to me, seems likely.  One more person to move Jimmy's story forward, and Chuck's story.  The only two who count, other than the BB crossovers.

 

I wonder if Howard acts like such an ass to Kim because he resents Chuck? Howard makes all these special arrangements for Chuck to work, get him groceries and accommodates his odd behavior by having the staff hide their electronics. It must be frustrating as hell to know that if Chuck was just an associate he could push him out the door. Chuck contributes but I wonder if Howard hangs back a little and lets him just to stroke his ego. Whatever friendship they have, Chuck's current circumstances must put an enormous strain on it.

Yeah, it would be nice to know anything about Howard, wouldn't it?

 

I read this on another board, actually I've seen it a lot.  Are the ratings rising or dropping because I am seeing comments like this more and more, and people saying they aren't bothering to watch anymore as well. 

Boring as fuck

 

 

I think it would be less boring if the only stories weren't about CHUCK and Jimmy.  Yes, we are finally getting a bit more of Kim, and she nailed that scene on the steps when Howard told her she's back in Dock Review.  Then, she basically just sat there and let Chuck talk and talk and talk some more again about how bad Jimmy is in her next scene, only there really to let Chuck talk and look shell shocked.  What did she have?  Two lines?

 

Then of course we have the fabulous BB crossovers, which at this point are the only life in the show, and thank God for those.  It's not that I want this to be BB, I absolutely want and wanted this show to succeed on it's own, and be very different, but keeping the humor, tension, and wonderful nuances we know this team can produce.

 

Other than that, the rest of the screen time is taken up by people we just don't know, and so, have no reason to care about, other than LOST type speculation, which doesn't interest me much.

 

I guess it comes down to this for me now.  I got Chuck the first dozen times.  I am uninterested in anything about Chuck anymore.  It's always the same.  I'm over it.  I don't like him, I don't like to dislike him, his story simply annoys me now.  I need more than Chuck.  It's ALL about Chuck, a character I am bored silly by, and want gone, last month.

 

Then there is Jimmy, and I do adore Jimmy, not just from Breaking Bad, I love Jimmy because this actor is phenomenal.  I'd love him more if he really got to act off people other than Chuck and Kim, or if there was more there there with Howard.  The anvils are dropping and crushing my love for this show, you can't walk without another Chuck anvil, Kim anvil, and now Erin anvil hitting you.  WE GET IT!   These people don't get him, never will, and will propel him into becoming Saul. 

 

Since I don't care about them much, or don't know them at all, why care?

 

I love it when he has scenes with Mike, not because Mike is from BB, but because we see sparks, dueling, and anything may happen.  That's why I suspect giving the smaller characters a bit of depth would work better, instead of all Chuck all the time.  Again, I think of the ensemble cast of Mad Men, even people were rarely saw?  We felt as if we had an idea who they were, pretty much right away, little nuances and habits go a long way to making you care about the characters you are watching.  Anything that gives Jimmy more to play off than just Chuck or Chuck's interference is a gift. 

 

Also, I really hate saying this, and she did have a couple of good episodes, but Kim bores me with Jimmy.  I think it's the actress more than the character.  I get the whole controlled thing, but yeah, if I'm truthful?  I don't care for her.

 

Now I'll be the happiest person in the world if suddenly we get a great, fascinating, compelling, fleshed out story and episodes staring next week, something worthy of what this team can do, because we all know they can.  I seriously hope that happens, because right now?  I'm with that other poster.  "Boring as fuck."  (other than Mike and Hector.)

Edited March 16, 2016 by Umbelina

[Blakeston]

But, I don't see where we're getting the idea something happens to Rebecca?  Did I miss a line or a scene somewhere?  We just met her and there weren't any ominous strings or dun-dun-duns that I heard or saw.  As a matter of fact, I felt she was a non-event given they named the whole episode after her.  Perhaps it's just that they go on a joy ride and sleep together?  Clearly, Chuck and Rebecca's love life is failing -- that was made abundantly clear.  I didn't miss that point.

We know that since the flashback with Rebecca took place, she left Chuck's life one way or another, and his mental health has gone way downhill. People are just speculating about what could have happened to her that would lead him to where he is now.

 

For me the episode was further confirmation that Chuck's been pulling all the strings -- we simply found out that it goes back decades.

I don't think Chuck is pulling the strings regarding Howard's treatment of Kim. When Chuck and Howard were alone together, Howard informed Chuck that Kim brought in a huge client, and Chuck said something like, "I guess she's out of the doghouse now," and Chuck made it clear that he wasn't so sure about that.

I still don't get how Kim is getting punished so badly for Jimmy's commercial.  He told her about it after it aired, correct?

She saw it shortly before it aired, not afterward.

And it appears that Howard is assuming that Kim knew about Jimmy's plan to air it without permission, and chose to say nothing. When Chuck found out that Kim had been led to believe that Jimmy had permission, he expressed surprise. And then Chuck pointed out that Kim could have explained that to Howard, but chose not to.

[Umbelina]

Yeah, that whole "Kim takes a bullet for Jimmy" and doesn't defend herself or even tell  the truth was a stretch for me too.

 

Get a backbone woman, this is your career, and there were easy ways out of that without stabbing Jimmy in the back or front.  Ugh.

 

Maybe that's the reason I don't care about Kim very much, less the actress' skill, than, once again the writing.  We only see her at work or with Jimmy.  I'd like to see her other relationships as well, if she is such an important character.  People don't exist in a vacuum.  I know she works a lot, but she must have family, or friends, or do something outside of work as well, we don't even have to see her do it, just a few words about something personal that doesn't have to do with work, or Jimmy.  "My twin sister just called from Boston, she's getting married next summer, I hope I can get the time off.  She gets it though, you know, so she asked our little sister to be her bridesmaid, she knows I could get caught up...here..."  A letter from her dad, or brother in the Navy...just anything to show this woman exists outside of work or Jimmy, or at least, once did. 

 

http://zap2it.com/2016/03/better-call-saul-teases-breaking-bad-cousins-michael-mando-vince-gilligan/ The interview here with the actor who plays Nacho really says it all.  The addition of his father gave his character so much depth, so much background, made him more complex and interesting. 

 

More of that please.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Umbelina

[LoneHaranguer]

 

It must be frustrating as hell to know that if Chuck was just an associate he could push him out the door.

No. Chuck would just threaten to sue under the ADA.

[Clanstarling]

Agreed, which is why the gentle threat of a lawsuit might work.

Is there such a thing as a "gentle" threat to sue? Especially at a law firm?

 

 

 

For me, Erin's flash of humanity was with Jimmy the next day when he tried to pull him "slippin' Jimmy has the GERD" on her and all her Pixie perkiness was dropped in an instant.  To me, that let me know that something was there "are we going to do this or not".....and in that voice......made her more interesting to me and let me think there is something more there.

Totally agree.

 

 

Oh, gosh: why not both?!  The thing is, sexism is often folded right into weaselhood, part and parcel. It's how you get away with being a weasel -- dump on the women who work for you.  Way back when I got my first management gig, we used to have regional meetings that rotated through all the offices. I was the only woman among the five managers in the region. Now, I don't drink coffee, never have. But working a coffee maker isn't hard, and when I hosted my first time, I made a pot. The next meeting was at another manager's office, and the regional manager asked me to make the coffee. Not my office, not my coffee pot, not my fucking job. But I had the tits, so I guess I'm supposed to make the coffee! Well, I at least had the presence of mind to demur. Sorry, fellas; I don't drink coffee, I have no idea how a coffee machine works! Gracious! I'm afraid I'll break something! They couldn't chide me for ignorance since correcting me would demonstrate that they were perfectly capable of working the coffee maker, and thus perfectly able to tend to that task, so they didn't ever chide me for ignorance. And I haven't made coffee in the 30 years since.  All of which is a long winded way of saying that scene put my shoulders right up around my ears.

Amen! I used the same tactic to avoid being tapped to fill in at the reception desk. Edited March 16, 2016 by clanstarling

[RCharter]

Is there such a thing as a "gentle" threat to sue? Especially at a law firm?

 

 

 

Totally agree.

 

 

Amen! I used the same tactic to avoid being tapped to fill in at the reception desk.

LOL.....good point.....I would look up some case that was on point and try to mention it in casual conversation......real gentle like.

 

To the third point -- I find when there is a job I don't want to do (being receptionist, making coffee -- which I TRULY don't know how to make since I don't drink it) I just do a shitty job at it once and no one asks me again.  "Oh noes, did I just hang up on five people? did I just route that call to the wrong office? how do I put a call on hold again?"  Its passive aggressive and shitty, but it gets the job done.

[Umbelina]

LOL.....good point.....I would look up some case that was on point and try to mention it in casual conversation......real gentle like.

 

To the third point -- I find when there is a job I don't want to do (being receptionist, making coffee -- which I TRULY don't know how to make since I don't drink it) I just do a shitty job at it once and no one asks me again.  "Oh noes, did I just hang up on five people? did I just route that call to the wrong office? how do I put a call on hold again?"  Its passive aggressive and shitty, but it gets the job done.

It's a tried an true male way to get out of housework as well.

 

"Oh, is there still gunk on the plates I washed?  I guess I suck at that, you do it so much better dear."

or

"Oh, look, I'm sorry I shrunk your favorite sweater to toddler size, you really don't wash everything in hot and put it in the dryer?  I thought that was more sanitary." 

or

"How did all these clothes turn pink?"

 

Discrimination lawsuits are something I think mainly white men think are something easy to do, and also think they are much more common than they really are.  They are hell to go through, and very expensive, usually against firms with much deeper pockets that can bankrupt you long before you ever see a judge or a jury.  They also ruin careers, and in the vast majority of cases, not pursued because of both of those things, and the years of effort and fortitude it requires.  Most avoid it, and simply, somehow, move on.  Much cheaper, much less stress, financially better to just go get another job.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Umbelina

[RCharter]

I think it's great she wanted to help Jimmy. But I don't think Davis & Main is a very good fit for him. Actually, if Chuck weren't getting so re-involved with HHM, I think Jimmy would have been a good fit there. I bet Howard would have looked the other way when Jimmy bribed the court clerk. As obsessed as he is with keeping up with appearances, I think Howard is more open to bending the rules and a fluid set of business ethics than Kim or Chuck is. But Davis and Main is very by the book, as evidenced with Erin telling Jimmy he needs to have two spaces after each period and a number of other nitpicky things. I just think someone as free spirited as Jimmy was bound to feel stifled by this corporate culture, even if he was committed to changing his personal code of ethics (which was a tall order anyways).

 

Kim basically tied herself to someone she can't really trust and while she had very good intentions, I don't think it was a smart move on her part. A recommendation to a more laid back kind of law firm would have gone over better. I realize that wasn't an option at the time but Kim's decision to help him may have long lasting ramifications for her career beyond this one incident.

Its not a good fit....at all.  But for her, its the best thing ever and she cannot understand how anyone wouldn't change who they are to fit into the mold of that job.  

 

I think its that way when someone really thinks something is special, they can't imagine that other people don't want the exact same thing.  I think Jimmy would have brought in clients and D&M would have looked the other way, but at some point he was going to have to write something and I suspect that is not where Jimmy would shine.  Like you said, D&M feels like an old school firm, very rarefied.  Jimmy is a fighter, a bruiser, more Bruce Cutler (the guy that famously defended John Gotti). D&M is more genteel.  When Erin was talking to Jimmy, she made mention that he used to many "obviously's" and some other word.....likely because they are too baldly argumentative.  Even his style of writing, the words alone are not dignified enough for D&M.   Although Jimmy may have made a great in court litigator and done well with juries....so you do have a point.

 

I totally agree that Howard would have looked the other way.  I doubt that Howard would allow himself to be there, but he wouldn't have grabbed the toy with such passion and force.  He probably would have found an excuse to go to the bathroom.

 

I think Kim just saw something that she couldn't imagine anyone not wanting, and she has always thought that all Jimmy needed was a chance, any chance.  But you're right, I think Jimmy would have done much better at a firm that handled criminal defense cases or something along those lines.  

[Blakeston]

No matter how genius a lawyer Chuck is, he wouldn't be able to pull off an ADA complaint. Electrosensitivity Disorder isn't a recognized condition, and working away from electricity isn't a reasonable accommodation.

[Bryce Lynch]

Lots of shows/movies do this; darken the offices to demonstrate it's off-hours. Which, in my experience in corporate life, doesn't happen. All the lights stay on until the overnight cleaning staff turn them off when they leave.

Oh, gosh: why not both?! The thing is, sexism is often folded right into weaselhood, part and parcel. It's how you get away with being a weasel -- dump on the women who work for you. Way back when I got my first management gig, we used to have regional meetings that rotated through all the offices. I was the only woman among the five managers in the region. Now, I don't drink coffee, never have. But working a coffee maker isn't hard, and when I hosted my first time, I made a pot. The next meeting was at another manager's office, and the regional manager asked me to make the coffee. Not my office, not my coffee pot, not my fucking job. But I had the tits, so I guess I'm supposed to make the coffee! Well, I at least had the presence of mind to demur. Sorry, fellas; I don't drink coffee, I have no idea how a coffee machine works! Gracious! I'm afraid I'll break something! They couldn't chide me for ignorance since correcting me would demonstrate that they were perfectly capable of working the coffee maker, and thus perfectly able to tend to that task, so they didn't ever chide me for ignorance. And I haven't made coffee in the 30 years since. All of which is a long winded way of saying that scene put my shoulders right up around my ears.

$5 grand seems like paltry fee for perjury. I bet Mike can do better than that.

It is possible that Chuck is sexist and a weasel. But, he didn't ask her to make the coffee out of sexism.

Clearly his goal was to engage Kim in a "heart to heart" talk about Jimmy so he could warn her/poison her against him. The coffee was merely a vehicle to that conversation.

He asked her to make it, not because she was a woman, but because he is so nuts that he could no more operate an electric coffee pot with his "condition" than he could if he had no arms.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Bryce Lynch

[NYCFree]

Interestingly, we did learn something new about Howard this week. When Chuck and Rebecca were talking as they prepared for their small dinner party, Rebecca was mentioning the problems another musician was causing. At one point in the conversation Chuck mentions the importance of morale and said something like "God knows all the hoops Howard jumps through in order to keep the troops happy."

The week that we saw Chuck playing the piano part of a music piece, others wrote it the song is about a woman who falls in love with a man's brother. I think that's why everyone is speculating about Rebecca.

I thought the fact that Chuck repeatedly kept pulling on his ear was great. It wasn't that Rebecca was deliberately ignoring his high sign, she was just too engaged by Jimmy to even see what Chuck was doing.

[Clanstarling]

It's a tried an true male way to get out of housework as well.

 

"Oh, is there still gunk on the plates I washed?  I guess I suck at that, you do it so much better dear."

or

"Oh, look, I'm sorry I shrunk your favorite sweater to toddler size, you really don't wash everything in hot and put it in the dryer?  I thought that was more sanitary." 

or

"How did all these clothes turn pink?"

Which is why I made it a point never to complain (even if I had to grit my teeth to avoid it). Once they realize poor performance won't get them out of it, they tended to get better at it.

[Dev F]

I wonder if Howard acts like such an ass to Kim because he resents Chuck? Howard makes all these special arrangements for Chuck to work, get him groceries and accommodates his odd behavior by having the staff hide their electronics. It must be frustrating as hell to know that if Chuck was just an associate he could push him out the door. Chuck contributes but I wonder if Howard hangs back a little and lets him just to stroke his ego. Whatever friendship they have, Chuck's current circumstances must put an enormous strain on it.

 

I definitely think it has something to do with that close kinship between Kim and Chuck, which the episode actually spells out in dialogue. ("We have a lot in common, you and I.") And I wonder if it has to do with something I mused about last week -- that Howard seems to have a soft spot for Jimmy in particular, perhaps because they're both smooth-talking hustlers surrounded by stuffed-shirt rule-grubbers.

 

Perhaps in Howard's mind, Kim is to Jimmy as Chuck is to him -- a good person, a diligent lawyer, but a fundamentally incompatible partner who's dragging him down. Maybe the point of Howard's abuse is to convince Kim that her boyfriend is no good for her, so they can go their separate ways before their lives become too entangled to disengage.

 

After all, come to think of it, this episode is largely about incompatible partners. It's named after Chuck's wife, with whom he can't seem to connect, and one of the major throughlines is about Jimmy's odd-couple misadventures with hopeless killjoy Erin. It's no accident, I don't think, that the multicolored document flags that mark Erin's edits to Jimmy's brief are echoed in the colorful Post-its that Kim uses to track her efforts to save herself. It suggests the question, is Kim just as wrong for Jimmy as Erin is? Maybe Howard has already gotten to "Hell yes."

Edited March 17, 2016 by Dev F

[queenanne]

I think Chuck is jealous of Jimmy's sense of humor and natural charm. He assumed and hoped Rebecca would hate him, but she liked him. Then, when he tried to be funny himself, it fell flat, though his lawyer joke might have been the funniest one.

 

Yes, he was expecting Rebecca to find Jimmy a crude, uneducated twit.  Also makes sense if it's a childhood pattern, where Jimmy was rewarded for being family clown.

 

I so agree, I'm loving it. I was surprised to see so many negative comments about the episode, and the season in general. I remember watching last night, and Kim and Chuck were just talking - and I was riveted. It's true that a lot of the characters aren't very likeable. But I felt the same with Breaking Bad. Over the course of the series I think I hated more people than I actively liked. The first time I watched, I HATED Walt. Hated him! And I thought - how odd to watch a series where I dislike the main character so so much. But he was still a fascinating character. That's how I feel about this show. I really cannot stand Chuck, yet I want to know more about him. That's the beauty of Gilligan, IMO. I'm hooked. 

 

I absolutely loathed Jesse for minimum the entire first season, lol.  I wanted to swap him for Krazy 8.

 

Ehh I feel like this is far too sparkly of a view of Jimmy. Don't forget this guy used to regularly con unsuspecting people out of a lot of money.

 

I don't think it is, and take the point; Jimmy can be lazy opportunist who wants money to get by without earning it; but he's also kind and others-centric, looking outward.

 

I think there is a difference between "I save me" when random events have caused a problem or she has caused her own punishment through her own behaviour.  On the other hand, Jimmy's impetuous and reckless behaviour caused Kim's banishment.  I would be tempted, in her shoes, to say, "Fucking right you're fixing this.  You caused it."

 

Tempted, I say.  I'm not sure what I would actually do.  I'm not clear on why she needs the job so badly because, by this point, I would have quit.  The humiliation and debasement is beyond understanding.

 

ETA:  I'm still noodling this statement of mine because it's so debatable.  Part of me would also be tempted to say, "Don't do a God damned thing.  Your actions caused this mess now go sit in the corner and be quiet."  But no part of me would say, "You caused this so I'm responsible for fixing my predicament which was a direct result of your behaviour."  That just doesn't quite compute in my head.  Of course, another way of looking at it is that Jimmy did what he did and Kim wasn't savvy enough to see something smelled -- and that's what she's punishing herself for.

 

I think Kim made it pretty clear with her plans for something mutually convenient for their offices, barbecues and horses, that she's got marital stars in her eyes.  That as soon as Jimmy looked respectable it was ON.  I like the character and think she's essentially a good person, but she leapt on that pretty picture of yuppie couplehood like a starveling, to the point where Jimmy borderline mocked her.  (Be interesting if that's because she comes from a not so great family, which we don't know either way.)

 

I definitely think it has something to do with that close kinship between Kim and Chuck, which the episode actually spells out in dialogue. ("We have a lot in common, you and I.") And I wonder if it has to do with something I mused about last week -- that Howard seems to have a soft spot for Jimmy in particular, perhaps because they're both smooth-talking hustlers surrounded by stuffed-shirt rule-grubbers.

 

Perhaps in Howard's mind, Kim is to Jimmy as Chuck is to him -- a good person, a diligent lawyer, but a fundamentally incompatible partner who's dragging him down. Maybe the point of Howard's abuse is to convince Kim that her boyfriend is no good for her, so they can go their separate ways before their lives become too entangled to disengage.

 

After all, come to think of it, this episode is largely about incompatible partners. It's named after Chuck's wife, with whom he can't seem to connect, and one of the major throughlines is about Jimmy's odd-couple misadventures with hopeless killjoy Erin. It's no accident, I don't think, that the multicolored document flags that mark Erin's edits to Jimmy's brief are echoed in the colorful Post-its that Kim uses to track her efforts to save herself. It suggests the question, is Kim just as wrong for Jimmy as Erin is? Maybe Howard has already gotten to "Hell yes."

 

I don't think, though it's fun, that we can do much speculation on Howard, because despite my unpopular-opinion belief from the first season, where I did not think that Howard was the very devil for peaceably hanging out eating Jimmy's cake like he thought people liked him; I agreed and always thought that Howard did like and admire Jimmy's drive, gumption, and essential personhood.  I feel like Howard broke bread with Jimmy because he liked him.

  

That said, we simply haven't gotten enough.  Is he closeted (or out), with a bit of a yen for Jimmy?  Does he have amatory interest in Kim (I've never gotten the vibe from either of them but you never know)?  Is he simply "one of those jerks who thinks he's a Man of the People and doesn't know people hate him?"  Because I just don't see any reason for him to go out on a limb to hire Jimmy, then combine it with exiling Kim, if his intention was not "Jimmy will do well, justify my faith in him, and then it will be awesome because people will think I know talent."  I can think of literally no other reason than positive feelings, why Howard would push for Jimmy to be hired.  We've seen that Chuck hates the idea, why would Howard want to tick Chuck off, unless Howard wants Chuck to have a firm-quitting relapse?

Edited March 17, 2016 by queenanne

[LittleIggy]

Honestly, I find that law school really does not prepare lawyers for actual practice at all.  There are some that are starting to add practicum and practical classes, but not the Almighty Tier 1 schools that Big Law loves.  This is also why the ABA's restrictions on distance education that we've discussed re Jimmy's correspondence course with UAS is dumb -- it's all very theoretical/ivory-tower-y.  Personally, I think the entire third year should be replaced with a practicum, courses in rainmaking, project management, people management, and other things actually useful.  (I strongly recommend that people take a couple years off and go work in a legal environment in which they'd like to practice before going to law school because it ain't Law & Order.)

 .

As a former attorney, I say amen to that. I went to law school in the late 80s, and they did nothing to prepare you for actual practice. You had to hope someone would show you the ropes when you got out into the real world. I hated practicing law (for a variety of reasons),left it, and at age 52 and went to graduate school in Vermont to get an MA in TESOL. Best decision I could have made.

[Sentient Meat]

I think Howard and the people at Davis and Main are thinly drawn by design in the same way that Gretchen and Elliot were also marginalized... rich one percenters play acting out the charade of their "important" lives while the rest of the peons live their lives of quiet desperation.  Both series (BB and Saul) remind me of a short story that Borges wrote about a writer that lived his life immersed in his books and only really began to live once he decided to break from the Matrix/virtual reality like lifestyle of academia and enter a knife fight.  The Coen brothers and Cormac McCarthy also loosely dealt with this theme in "No Country for Old Men".  Kim wants to live in this bourgeois fantasy world in the way that all of us have been conditioned by the mainstream media to desire this lifestyle, but she is also intrigued by what Jimmy has to offer.  Some people seem to think that there is a vast chasm between Jimmy and Kim in appearance and achievement but I think that is only because she wears the "uniform" of respectability.  If Jimmy dressed in Armani suits and had Jose Eber cut his hair, and Kim worked at a dive bar... I think you might be surprised to have the opposite reaction to the characters as they are fairly evenly matched in terms of their attractiveness... The key scene is the moment where

they take down the arrogant stockbroker where Jimmy, like Javier Bardem's character in No Country reveals the tenuous, fraudulent illusion of any real universal order.  Kim is both terrified and thrilled by this revelation and while Jimmy wants the pair to Truman Show off into the sunset... Kim decides to do what most of us do which is to plug back in to our viscous Matrix like coffins built by IKEA.

 

This probably also explains why our next president will be Hillary instead of Bernie.

[Captanne]

Sentient Meat, political tag aside, those are great observations and ITA.  I had a hard time reconciling Kim's desperation at work to fit in and then diametrically opposed thrill by working with Jimmy on a short-con.  You've put it in a way I can agree with.  

[shapeshifter]

It is possible that Chuck is sexist and a weasel. But, he didn't ask her to make the coffee out of sexism.

Clearly his goal was to engage Kim in a "heart to heart" talk about Jimmy so he could warn her/poison her against him. The coffee was merely a vehicle to that conversation.

He asked her to make it, not because she was a woman, but because he is so nuts that he could no more operate an electric coffee pot with his "condition" than he could if he had no arms.

True, but I'm sure it felt sexist to Kim, but Chuck is too wrapped up in himself (and his space blanket-lined suit) to realize that. Chuck asking Kim to make coffee is another reminder of his lack of the kind of people skills that Jimmy has.

When Chuck told the story of Jimmy pilfering money from their father's store, it's possible he did it at least some times to give customers free or discounted items to keep them coming back.

Edited March 17, 2016 by shapeshifter

[Bryce Lynch]

True, but I'm sure it felt sexist to Kim, but Chuck is to wrapped up in himself (and his space blanket-lined suit) to realize that. Chuck asking Kim to make coffee is another reminder of his lack of the kind of people skills that Jimmy has.

When Chuck told the story of Jimmy pilfering money from their father's store, it's possible he did it at least some times to give customers free or discounted items to keep them coming back.

That's the thing, just because someone "feels" something is sexist, racist or whatverist, it doesn't make it so. But, it is becoming the standard under which we operate.

I "feel" like your comment about Chuck was insensitive and offensive to the mentally ill and electromagnetically challenged and you should be banned from the forum

Of course, I don't really believe that, do you see how "feelings" standard can work?

[Tatum]

 

I absolutely loathed Jesse for minimum the entire first season, lol.  I wanted to swap him for Krazy 8.

 

 

 

OMG, me too! That's so funny. In the early part of season 1, when Walt is teaching Krazy 8 how he makes the meth, and Jesse is being a useless whiner, I thought, well, maybe Jesse is going to get replaced by Krazy 8, and I was all for it. I did not like Jesse in the first 2-3 seasons and found his speaking patterns irritating, not funny. Then I started to like Jesse more but didn't like Walt as the series went on. I never understood all the hate for Skylar.

 

I like Better Call Saul more than I liked Breaking Bad. I actually think there's a lot more to both Chuck and Howard than what has been shown. Chuck may not be very nice, but I think there's more to the story than a jealous, overlooked child that grew up resentful and now looks to sandbag his little brother whenever he can. And I think Howard could really be a fascinating character. That's mostly because I like the actor, but there's a lot more they could do with him. The revelation last season that he was the fall guy for Chuck made me think he's not just going to be the rich antagonist who rains on Jimmy's parade all the time.

 

Interesting observation about Kim wanting Jimmy to be more "corporate". so he's respectable enough to marry. I don't know though- sounds like Kim is something of a hot commodity in her field based on how many potential date offers she turned down in an effort to bring in a big client. If she wanted to date a rule following attorney on the partner track, she probably could. She wouldn't have to remold Jimmy.

[ShadowFacts]

That's the thing, just because someone "feels" something is sexist, racist or whatverist, it doesn't make it so. But, it is becoming the standard under which we operate.

I "feel" like your comment about Chuck was insensitive and offensive to the mentally ill and electromagnetically challenged and you should be banned from the forum

Of course, I don't really believe that, do you see how "feelings" standard can work?

 

That's true of everything, of course.  Just because you say it doesn't make it so.  Just because you feel it, doesn't mean everybody else does, or that the thing you don't like is actionable.  But in this case there is at least some evidence -- Chuck asked her if there's more coffee at the end of the scene, and then kind of caught himself.  The coffee's already made at that point.  Also, he had his driver following him in the building toting his stuff, he could have put him on coffee detail.  So maybe it was sexist, maybe not, maybe just boorish, thoughtless, entrenched in his mental illness, etc. etc.  Still, there's nothing wrong with calling something sexist and backing it up with evidence, or with the echoes of personal experience.  Baseless labeling or name-calling is one thing.  I don't think we've seen Chuck being a raving sexist.  We just saw him collaborate on cooking dinner with his wife.  He's not a troglodyte.  But in the Kim/coffee instance, he was maybe doing something a little un-enlightened.  I don't see anything wrong with that opinion.  I think something was going on with the whole thing, though, that the writers wanted us to notice, or after Kim said she didn't want any, he could have let it drop and just started talking.  That she had to go make it meant something more than just he is mentally ill, we've already had that driven home ad nauseum.

[smartymarty]

"...but rather the work of someone who had built up so much good will with AMC and their audience that they could actually afford to tell stories in their own unique style like independent film did in the nineties before illegal downloading killed almost everything except Marvel franchises. "

You know that Marvel filed bankruptcy in 1996?

[Bryce Lynch]

That's true of everything, of course. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Just because you feel it, doesn't mean everybody else does, or that the thing you don't like is actionable. But in this case there is at least some evidence -- Chuck asked her if there's more coffee at the end of the scene, and then kind of caught himself. The coffee's already made at that point. Also, he had his driver following him in the building toting his stuff, he could have put him on coffee detail. So maybe it was sexist, maybe not, maybe just boorish, thoughtless, entrenched in his mental illness, etc. etc. Still, there's nothing wrong with calling something sexist and backing it up with evidence, or with the echoes of personal experience. Baseless labeling or name-calling is one thing. I don't think we've seen Chuck being a raving sexist. We just saw him collaborate on cooking dinner with his wife. He's not a troglodyte. But in the Kim/coffee instance, he was maybe doing something a little un-enlightened. I don't see anything wrong with that opinion. I think something was going on with the whole thing, though, that the writers wanted us to notice, or after Kim said she didn't want any, he could have let it drop and just started talking. That she had to go make it meant something more than just he is mentally ill, we've already had that driven home ad nauseum.

But the available evidence shows that he asked her to make the coffee because he is batpoop crazy and thinks he would suffer from an acute, possibly life threatening attack if he attempted to operate the coffee maker.

Kim knows about his "condition", so while her initial reaction might be to suspect sexism, she would quickly realize it was an electricity issue.

Do you think if the genders were reversed and Jimmy was a promising associate romantically involved with Chuck's former con-artist sister (Slippin' Kimmy) Chuck would have overcome his pathological fear of electricity and made the coffee?

Edited March 17, 2016 by Bryce Lynch

[ShadowFacts]

But the available evidence shows that he asked her to make the coffee because he is batpoop crazy and thinks he would suffer from an acute, possibly life threatening attack if he attempted to operate the coffee maker.

Kim knows about his "condition", so while her initial reaction might be to suspect sexism, she would quickly realize it was an electricity issue.

Do you think if the genders were reversed and Jimmy was a promising associate romantically involved with Chuck's former con-artist sister (Slippin' Kimmy) Chuck would have overcome his pathological fear of electricity and made the coffee?

 

No, I don't think he would have overcome his fear, but I don't think that was all the scene was about.  As I said, he kept it up even after the coffee was made, and had a chance to have his male assistant get on the coffee duty.  Kim (and we all) know about his condition, it's been hammered at us a lot, and it was highlighted earlier in the scene when he says he comes in pre-dawn and leaves by 9 and why.  Kim may think it was all about his phobia, or may also think otherwise, because we don't really know how he treated her before he went batpoop.  I don't think there's conclusive proof either way, from the scene itself.  It strikes me one way, you another perhaps. 

[attica]

But, he didn't ask her to make the coffee out of sexism.

 

But, he thought he could ask her to make coffee to get her to have a talk with him because the patriarchal system in which we live demands that women tend to the needs of men. He could have just asked her to come in and talk -- she couldn't have refused a named partner if he had. But no, he asked her to serve him in a completely stereotypically sexist way. And as careful as the writers on this show are, I'm comfortable with that being the exact message they were sending. Occam's razor, in other words.

[ghoulina]

. And I think Howard could really be a fascinating character. That's mostly because I like the actor, but there's a lot more they could do with him. The revelation last season that he was the fall guy for Chuck made me think he's not just going to be the rich antagonist who rains on Jimmy's parade all the time.

 

Agree. I was full on prepared to hate Howard til the end last season. Then we got the gut punch - Chuck has been sabotaging his brother this entire time, and Howard actually kind of likes him! But now Howard is being a total prick to Kim. I feel like there is A LOT more we're going to learn about Howard. Just because we don't know much about him yet, doesn't mean we never will. I trust the writers. 

[Tatum]

But the available evidence shows that he asked her to make the coffee because he is batpoop crazy and thinks he would suffer from an acute, possibly life threatening attack if he attempted to operate the coffee maker.

Kim knows about his "condition", so while her initial reaction might be to suspect sexism, she would quickly realize it was an electricity issue.

Do you think if the genders were reversed and Jimmy was a promising associate romantically involved with Chuck's former con-artist sister (Slippin' Kimmy) Chuck would have overcome his pathological fear of electricity and made the coffee?

 

Maybe I'm just a simple person, but I don't see Chuck as this master manipulator who asked Kim to make coffee in order to show her her place as a woman and a subordinate. I think he wanted to talk to Kim, and I think he wanted a cup of coffee, and he is afraid of the coffee maker. Sure, he could have asked Kim to wait in his office while he tracked down his male assistant and had HIM make the coffee, but Kim was standing right there. I think Chuck may be jealous and resentful of Jimmy, and he certainly isn't acting very grateful for everything Jimmy has done for him, but I don't see really everything he does as a calculated move to prove anything or manipulate anyone.

 

Also, love "Slippin Kimmy".

[Tatum]

Agree. I was full on prepared to hate Howard til the end last season. Then we got the gut punch - Chuck has been sabotaging his brother this entire time, and Howard actually kind of likes him! But now Howard is being a total prick to Kim. I feel like there is A LOT more we're going to learn about Howard. Just because we don't know much about him yet, doesn't mean we never will. I trust the writers. 

 

Howard has frequently been a dick to Kim. Mileage may vary on Kim's reaction seeing the commercial and then being chewed out by Howard, but I do think punishing her for the commercial is actually less unfair than last season when Howard punished Kim for getting fired by the Kettlemans. You could argue that Kim had a .008% culpability in the commercial fiasco (note, I say could argue, not conclude), but there was nothing she could have done about the Kettlemans. That guy wasn't getting an acquittal, and Kim knew that, so she was very honest and negotiated a sweet deal for them. She could have lied her face off and said she could get him off entirely, then collected her check after he was carted off to prison for decades, instead, she tried to look out for his wellbeing and the firm's reputation. And Howard still punished her. He also was quite snappy and dismissive with her when she tried to speak up at all on behalf of Jimmy.

 

I don't know if Howard is that hard on all the associates and we just don't see it, or if he has some axe to grind with Kim.

[Bryce Lynch]

But, he thought he could ask her to make coffee to get her to have a talk with him because the patriarchal system in which we live demands that women tend to the needs of men. He could have just asked her to come in and talk -- she couldn't have refused a named partner if he had. But no, he asked her to serve him in a completely stereotypically sexist way. And as careful as the writers on this show are, I'm comfortable with that being the exact message they were sending. Occam's razor, in other words.

The coffee was about making it seem like a casual, "heart to heart talk" between colleagues as opposed to a senior partner dictating to an associate.

He also apologized to her for asking her to make the coffee and explained why he couldn't. Occam's razor says crazy, not sexist.

I think the writers wrote it so his request would be awkward. I have seen that gag in other shows or movies before "How about some coffee?" "No thanks." "I meant get me some.".

It was a play on that with Chuck coming across like a stereotypical sexist boss, due to his "illness". But Kim clearly understood the situation. She had apologized for turning a light on moments earlier.

[smartymarty]

" I know she had loyalty because HHM put her through school, but at some point the self-respect has to kick in."

I forgot about this. It's more likely not loyalty than a contract that requires her to work at the firm for a certain number of years in exchange for them having paid her tuition. Thus she might not financially be able to leave, because she'd have to pay out the remainder of the contract. Similar to HHM's problem with Chuck's partnership.

[teddysmom]

Yeah, that whole "Kim takes a bullet for Jimmy" and doesn't defend herself or even tell  the truth was a stretch for me too.

 

That's the one thing I'm not getting.  Is she trying to keep Jimmy out of trouble? Because she isn't, and Jimmy would have never asked her to not defend herself. She should have said "He showed it to me and said D&M was cool with it, it was late at night and I assumed if D&M was okay, why would you be concerned? "

 

She even mentioned that it was very well done, didn't she? She was surprised how well produced it was.  

 

I'm hoping this gets cleared up a little better in coming episodes, it's really not like Vince & Co to have a plot point so muddled. 

[Bryce Lynch]

I am not sure there is more to the story with Kim and Howard. He never seemed to mistreat her before the commercial.

I think he blames her for him being embarrassed in front of Davis & Main, and as far as he knows, showing loyalty to Jimmy over him by "covering" for him.

I also think he is still using her as a scapegoat for Chuck. He seems to be intimidated by Chuck and I think he might not want to be OK with Kim until Chuck is.

[smartymarty]

Now, just like with Davis and Main, HHM isn't going to turn away business no matter how it gets to them. But it doesn't mean that they are going to abandon their long held traditions either. However, I think even in a traditional law firm setting up this meeting would be a feather in an associates cap, and something to discuss when thinking about who you're going to put on partner track but its not going to be something that is going to be the be all end all.

Actually, this is exactly what gets you to partner. Law firms are interested in making money. Bringing in new clients brings in more money. The associate who only does the work and only makes the hourly quota, and doesn't go above and beyond, does not make partner.

The only "dumb" thing going on is wasting an associate, who could be billing at a high rate, on document review. The firm likely is not billing her out at her usual rate for the doc review. That's why it's usually left to paralegals or first year associates, or even temps. It's tedious, unskilled work.

[ghoulina]

I am not sure there is more to the story with Kim and Howard. He never seemed to mistreat her before the commercial.

 

As someone mentioned upthread, he "demoted" her previously, when the Kettlemans jumped ship. And I agree that I'm not sure how else Kim could have handled that situation. Betsy Kettleman was delusional as hell. She wouldn't hear ANY talk of settling or admitting to any wrong doing. It would make HHM look like idiots if she tried to defend Craig as completely innocent and lost. Which they would. 

 

I almost wonder if Jimmy, with all of his charm, would have been able to convince the Kettlemans to settle, where Kim couldn't. Maybe Howard wishes she could be a little bit more like Jimmy? But I still thought sending her off to the "cornfields" that time was unfair as well. 

 

And then when she confronted him about not letting Jimmy on board with the Sandpiper stuff, he got really snippy with her. Granted, maybe it wasn't her place to say anything and I'm sure he was already feeling frustrated with always having to be the bad guy for Chuck...but I still felt he sounded overly harsh. 

 

JMO, but I get the impression that Howard has some issue with Kim. 

[LoneHaranguer]

 

No matter how genius a lawyer Chuck is, he wouldn't be able to pull off an ADA complaint. Electrosensitivity Disorder isn't a recognized condition, and working away from electricity isn't a reasonable accommodation.

More conditions are recognized now than in 2002; Chuck could have been the precedent-setter for that one. Accommodations are already being made that wouldn't sound excessive in argument and Chuck hasn't been demanding more, so it'd be tough to say it was unreasonable to continue. The case just has to be strong enough to act as leverage.

[Tatum]

 

 

I almost wonder if Jimmy, with all of his charm, would have been able to convince the Kettlemans to settle, where Kim couldn't. Maybe Howard wishes she could be a little bit more like Jimmy? But I still thought sending her off to the "cornfields" that time was unfair as well. 

 

He DID convince them to go back to Kim and take a plea, but that might have been blackmail he used to convince them. I can't remember exactly how it went. But yeah, that was super unfair to Kim. She was being as ethical as possible, looking out for her client when it would have been for more lucrative to pretend he had a shot in hell of getting a not guilty verdict.  It wouldn't have been her ass going to prison. At the time, I thought Howard just saw the lost dollar signs and didn't feel that Kim's conscience should have gotten in the way of billable hours.

[Sentient Meat]

This isn't the seventies era of Scorsese's "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore", or even the eighties of Mike Nichols "Working Girl"...and to focus on the sexism in the workplace with respect to this show is almost like focusing on racism based on the treatment of minority workers at Pollos Hermanos, the nail salon, or even Saul's law office.  It's true that sexism and racism are still going strong, but at best they are used by the writers as a secondary point to manipulate your feelings about a character.  Chuck treated his own brother like a plantation owner... continues to treat his new assistant the same...  Davis and Main completely dressed down Jimmy and even saddled him with a female watchdog for showing some out of the box thinking.  Chuck, Howard and the whole Davis and Main infrastructure are equal opportunity emasculaters that will destroy anyone that challenges their reactionary principles, not just women.

 

As I said above, I think Vince's target is the entitlement of the 1% more so than sexism... and that's why Howard will be more thinly drawn than Crazy 8... he wants you to focus on Downstairs more than the Upstairs.