S02.E08: Fifi

[carrps]

Minor point, but does anybody say "Sarbox?" I worked in IT and did a TON of work with our corporate regulatory department, and it was always either full out Sarbanes-Oxley or Sox. Never heard anyone ever say Sarbox.

[Umbelina]

I admit freely that the character of Chuck is less than compelling for me.  As fond as I am of the Canadian comedy team and all their actors, I'm not sold on Chuck's portrayal nor do I like the character at all.  Howard is enough of a cypher that, if they gave him all of Chuck's machinations, I wouldn't need the character of Chuck at all.

 

On a minor point, he's so one note that by the time he's on screen, I'm tempted to hit the fast forward button on the remote -- because, same old is same old.

Seriously!  I watch in real time, so I can't fast forward, but I'm at the point of not being able to stand Chuck, since it's always the same old, same old.  As for Howard?  Write your own story about his motivations, because they writers have given us nothing.  I find both characters irritating now, and a waste of time.

 

Yes, in addition, there is like a parking lot or other business across the street (I remember seeing something in the wide shot of the scene) which had a variety of cars. This is not an isolated building with nothing near it. If it were, then a car parked on the street or any traffic whatsoever might cause a raised eyebrow, He was parked behind a truck or dumpster far enough away that binoculars were necessary, so I think that he is ok (at least as far as we know right now). I work in a major city and I have to say, I am only cognizant of things really close to me when I am out on the street. a person could be surveiling me and I would have no clue. 

Yes, but are you a criminal, doing criminal things that could put you away for life?  This is a whole gang, and they don't pay attention or even bother to have a look out?

[hincandenza]

Yeah, I think the point is that Jimmy didn't leave a paper trail. Chuck created those documents/filings, and not on a computer; any errors will just be chalked up to Chuck being sloppy... or worse. After all, I am not a lawyer, but I assume if Jimmy was every found out for this stunt, he'd be in enormous trouble and possibly still in jail by the time of BB. Ergo, we know he won't be found out; Chuck, and possibly Kim, will suspect him but as some noted above, it'll just seem like crazy old Chuck ranting about Jimmy again. Even Howard, who I think is basically so completely done with Chuck at this point, would more easily believe the nutty old lawyer has simply lost his edge.

I'm enjoying the show, but I agree with the "sophomore slump" diagnosis; it's time to put HHM and it's crew in the rear-view mirror, and show us Saul in the strip mall with more crazy case-of-the-weeks like the Kettleman's.

[ShadowFacts]

I think it's more likely that Chuck was reviewing documents, not creating them.  Not only would I find it hard to believe he could produce that many boxes of papers on a typewriter, it would not be a good use of a partner's time to have him typing.  But even if he were doing that, the site plan looked like a larger architectural type drawing, which he couldn't have produced or created a title for on a typewriter. 

[J----av]

If their situations were reversed, Chuck would have had Jimmy committed to a mental hospital years ago, while lying to himself that it was all for the best. I still don't think we have been given the full picture of the history of McGill the shop owner, and his sons Chuck and Jimmy, and I think we'll eventually get another flashback which shows that the account that Chuck told to Kim had huge holes.

 

 People need to stop with this Chuck=Evil and Jimmy=Good. Chuck is a HUGE ass hole, but he is right about pretty much everything he says about JImmy. Like Walt always had Heisenberg in him, Jimmy always had Saul in him

[hincandenza]

 People need to stop with this Chuck=Evil and Jimmy=Good. Chuck is a HUGE ass hole, but he is right about pretty much everything he says about JImmy. Like Walt always had Heisenberg in him, Jimmy always had Saul in him

I think it's for three reasons.  First, like Walter White, Jimmy is our protagonist, and the focus of the show we're watching; even when he does bad things, we root for him over any other "bad guys", or even wryly chuckle at his clever skirting-of-the-law gimmicks.  I'll admit it always made me a little uncomfortable how much some viewers rooted for Walter or Dexter or Tony Soprano to win (and dump on the "bitches" in their lives, like poor Skyler, that somehow held them back), when they were clearly vicious and monstrous people.  Still, it's nearly impossible to not at least empathize with the protagonist of any well-written show, even when that protagonist is someone we'd run screaming from in real life. I've not seen "Hannibal" yet, but from everything I hear Mads Mikkelsen is absolutely incredible in that show, utterly captivating and impossible to look away from even as you know his character is evil personified.

 

Second, Jimmy is far more likable than Chuck or Walter ever were on their best days, and the first season made a great point of how Jimmy could even have been a solid legitimate lawyer with a little guidance from his older brother; we still see flashes of Jimmy as a decent man.  Chuck seems to irrationally resent that people like Jimmy because he's a friendly, likeable guy- Chuck is almost like the "Nice Guy " who doesn't understand why someone like Jimmy is adored by people who meet him, since in Chuck's mind Jimmy should be perpetually punished.  I'm sure I'm selectively remembering, but most of his scams so far in this series have either targeted someone who was themselves looking to pull a fast one (those scams he pulled with his Chicago friend mostly rely on another person being greedy), or a creative way to solve a problem such as drumming up business by intercepting a nursing home shuttle bus.  Morally and even legally wrong, sure- but nowhere in the league of other television anti-heroes.  

 

Three, I think the big difference between Chuck and Jimmy that affects our perception is that Jimmy knows he has the soul of a con artist but does try to have something of a moral compass when it counts- usually restricting himself to "marks" who aren't exactly noble themselves- whereas Chuck pretends he's a noble protector of the legal arts but is in many ways just as duplicitous and destructive as Jimmy.  Chuck uses his supposed veneration for the law as cover for the fact that he has abused Jimmy's fraternal generosity for years, and still secretly sabotaged him ruthlessly at every opportunity.  

 

Chuck is at heart a bitter hypocrite about his entire self, whereas Jimmy is a self-aware comical scamp.  People always enjoy the exploits of the playful trickster character.

[Umbelina]

All of that, and Chuck is boring too.

[Bannon]

 People need to stop with this Chuck=Evil and Jimmy=Good. Chuck is a HUGE ass hole, but he is right about pretty much everything he says about JImmy. Like Walt always had Heisenberg in him, Jimmy always had Saul in him

I never said Jimmy=Good. Jimmy's a con artist at heart, but he is one who labored, ethically and tirelessly, for years in a mail room, while getting a law degree (a profession he has some skill at) because he wanted (desperately) his brother's approval. In other words, Chuck had it it perfectly within his circle of competence to manipulate Jimmy to good ends, keeping Jimmy on the right side of the line, if Chuck wasn't not only an A-hole, but a stupid and lazy A-hole. Chuck's getting paid a sh*tload of money to manage a law firm. Earning his sh*tload of money not only entails being a great lawyer (which he is), but also using his considerable intelligence to recognize the easily observable fact that although Jimmy has had real history of not conforming to rules, he had been doing so for years, solely because he valued Chuck's approval above anything, and that Jimmy is smart, and that Jimmy is capable of working enormously hard. In other words, Jimmy is a flawed asset with great potential value to the firm that Chuck is geting paid a sh*tload of money to manage, if only Chuck will do his damned job. That's the irony. Chuck's the guy, not Jimmy, who first failed in his professional responsibilities to HHM, by stupidly, stupidly, stupidly, frittering away his ability to manipulate Jimmy, via idiotic backstabbing dishonesty.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Bannon

[Bannon]

I think it's for three reasons.  First, like Walter White, Jimmy is our protagonist, and the focus of the show we're watching; even when he does bad things, we root for him over any other "bad guys", or even wryly chuckle at his clever skirting-of-the-law gimmicks.  I'll admit it always made me a little uncomfortable how much some viewers rooted for Walter or Dexter or Tony Soprano to win (and dump on the "bitches" in their lives, like poor Skyler, that somehow held them back), when they were clearly vicious and monstrous people.  Still, it's nearly impossible to not at least empathize with the protagonist of any well-written show, even when that protagonist is someone we'd run screaming from in real life. I've not seen "Hannibal" yet, but from everything I hear Mads Mikkelsen is absolutely incredible in that show, utterly captivating and impossible to look away from even as you know his character is evil personified.

 

Second, Jimmy is far more likable than Chuck or Walter ever were on their best days, and the first season made a great point of how Jimmy could even have been a solid legitimate lawyer with a little guidance from his older brother; we still see flashes of Jimmy as a decent man.  Chuck seems to irrationally resent that people like Jimmy because he's a friendly, likeable guy- Chuck is almost like the "Nice Guy " who doesn't understand why someone like Jimmy is adored by people who meet him, since in Chuck's mind Jimmy should be perpetually punished.  I'm sure I'm selectively remembering, but most of his scams so far in this series have either targeted someone who was themselves looking to pull a fast one (those scams he pulled with his Chicago friend mostly rely on another person being greedy), or a creative way to solve a problem such as drumming up business by intercepting a nursing home shuttle bus.  Morally and even legally wrong, sure- but nowhere in the league of other television anti-heroes.  

 

Three, I think the big difference between Chuck and Jimmy that affects our perception is that Jimmy knows he has the soul of a con artist but does try to have something of a moral compass when it counts- usually restricting himself to "marks" who aren't exactly noble themselves- whereas Chuck pretends he's a noble protector of the legal arts but is in many ways just as duplicitous and destructive as Jimmy.  Chuck uses his supposed veneration for the law as cover for the fact that he has abused Jimmy's fraternal generosity for years, and still secretly sabotaged him ruthlessly at every opportunity.  

 

Chuck is at heart a bitter hypocrite about his entire self, whereas Jimmy is a self-aware comical scamp.  People always enjoy the exploits of the playful trickster character.

I certainly don't root for Jimmy when he engages in activity that harms wholly innocent people. I was cringing in the document altering scene, because it poses the potential of really harming Mesa Verde's owners and employees, who we have no reason to think are deserving of harm. I loved it when Jimmy and Kim conned the doof out of the thousand dollar tequila, because taking money from that conman is actually a public service. As Jimmy becomes Saul, I suspect I'll root for him with less and less frequency, but that doesn't mean I'll be less entertained.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Bannon

[hincandenza]

Seriously!  I watch in real time, so I can't fast forward, but I'm at the point of not being able to stand Chuck, since it's always the same old, same old.  As for Howard?  Write your own story about his motivations, because they writers have given us nothing.  I find both characters irritating now, and a waste of time.

 

Yes, but are you a criminal, doing criminal things that could put you away for life?  This is a whole gang, and they don't pay attention or even bother to have a look out?

I totally agree; I think the actor who plays Howard is fine- 69 years young and recovering nicely from that FOY Cream treatment (/Grimm)- but the dialogue or lack thereof that he has to work with makes him still cryptic nearly two full seasons in.  I find it frustrating that I have to guess a little too much about Howard's motivation; for example, I'm still not sure if he was shunning Kim at Chuck's insistence- and resentful of it and other things Chuck somehow makes him do- or if he did that himself for some reason.  I'm assuming the former because I still believe him from the first season about actually liking Jimmy, and respecting him, but having to acquiesce to Chuck's mania due to some unexplained partnership leverage in HMM.  On the plus side, if the Kinko's scam Jimmy just pulled works out, Howard might finally be able to force Chuck out as an acting partner in the firm on the grounds of incompetency.

 

Likewise, I don't know if he had a hand in setting up Kim with the other firm- either to help her because he felt bad, or to trap her into quitting and then getting fucked over- or whether he was fumingly angry at Chuck for once again letting his demanding ways and absurd Jimmy hatred drive HHM to make huge mistakes.  His interactions with Kim earlier seemed to be full of sublimated rage, but so did his meeting with Chuck this episode, so I'm not sure who he's really angry at. Someone earlier had a great write-up on how HHM is doing everything wrong, personnel-wise, for a large firm: between Jimmy and Kim, they've had millions in earnings brought to them on a silver platter by young lawyers, and the only reward Chuck would allow is condemnation and punishment, driving away employees whose little toe is worth more than a hundred "Pixie Ninja Erins" (TM SoSueMe) .  To me, the actor playing Howard portrayed genuine regret over Kim- especially because of his seemingly sincere tinge of regret that he ended up being a company man, with all wealth and the baggage that entails.  

 

But that's just it: I'm assuming all these things based on what little evidence I can find.  I get that Gilligan rightly avoids overly expository dialogue, but it'd be nice to get a clearer reading of these characters every now and then.

[Bannon]

I totally agree; I think the actor who plays Howard is fine- 69 years young and recovering nicely from that FOY Cream treatment (/Grimm)- but the dialogue or lack thereof that he has to work with makes him still cryptic nearly two full seasons in.  I find it frustrating that I have to guess a little too much about Howard's motivation; for example, I'm still not sure if he was shunning Kim at Chuck's insistence- and resentful of it and other things Chuck somehow makes him do- or if he did that himself for some reason.  I'm assuming the former because I still believe him from the first season about actually liking Jimmy, and respecting him, but having to acquiesce to Chuck's mania due to some unexplained partnership leverage in HMM.  On the plus side, if the Kinko's scam Jimmy just pulled works out, Howard might finally be able to force Chuck out as an acting partner in the firm on the grounds of incompetency.

 

Likewise, I don't know if he had a hand in setting up Kim with the other firm- either to help her because he felt bad, or to trap her into quitting and then getting fucked over- or whether he was fumingly angry at Chuck for once again letting his demanding ways and absurd Jimmy hatred drive HHM to make huge mistakes.  His interactions with Kim earlier seemed to be full of sublimated rage, but so did his meeting with Chuck this episode, so I'm not sure who he's really angry at. Someone earlier had a great write-up on how HHM is doing everything wrong, personnel-wise, for a large firm: between Jimmy and Kim, they've had millions in earnings brought to them on a silver platter by young lawyers, and the only reward Chuck would allow is condemnation and punishment, driving away employees whose little toe is worth more than a hundred "Pixie Ninja Erins" (TM SoSueMe) .  To me, the actor playing Howard portrayed genuine regret over Kim- especially because of his seemingly sincere tinge of regret that he ended up being a company man, with all wealth and the baggage that entails.  

 

But that's just it: I'm assuming all these things based on what little evidence I can find.  I get that Gilligan rightly avoids overly expository dialogue, but it'd be nice to get a clearer reading of these characters every now and then.

I forgive all when things are resolved well. I think a well resolved end to this story arc may be the destruction of HHM, or at least their end as a prominent independent firm. Howard just doesn't have the legal chops to oversee the firm, and Chuck, for all his brilliance as a lawyer, has towering flaws, managerial and personal, which logically suggests the firm should be in great, great, danger. 

[Umbelina]

Yeah, that's why I no longer care about Howard.  The writers can do anything with him, and until they do?  Fuck it.  I'm not going to play guessing games. For a character that is on screen in nearly every episode, he's nothing but plot driven.  His actions impact events in Saul/Jimmy's life.  Nothing more.

[scenario]

You can root for someone like Jimmy or Dexter because the people they directly hurt are either very evil person's themselves or second hand evil people. Many of the people that Jimmy coned were con men themselves. The ahole in the bar was a day trader.  He's the type guy who would happily steal a thousand peoples retirement funds if he could do it without consequences. 

 

The baseball cards guy wasn't a bad guy, he sold stuff to bad guys.  Dexter killed serial killers who killed innocent people. 

 

Chuck comes across as the guy who is by legal terms honest but dishonest by moral standards, He's like the cop that only give tickets to one ethnic group  and never to another. Where the people he gave the tickets to guilty? Probably. But that doesn't make it right.

 

Jimmy gives the feeling that he only targets people who deserve it. Of course people he doesn't target get hurt by mistake. Chuck gives me the feeling that he targets people he doesn't like or feels wronged by, whether or not they deserve it.  

[Clanstarling]

I totally agree; I think the actor who plays Howard is fine- 69 years young and recovering nicely from that FOY Cream treatment (/Grimm)-

Totally irrelevant, but I just had to find out if the "69 years young" line in Grimm was true - he was born in 1964, so not so much.

[ShadowFacts]

I think Chuck and Jimmy are more similar than they appear on the surface.  Both are smooth talkers, Chuck when he needs to be as we just saw in this episode, but not a natural charmer.  Both very smart.  Chuck has shown flashes of caring about Jimmy, as in when Jimmy got his first elder clients and Chuck eagerly dove in to help when the caseload became too great.  Also, they worked collaboratively at the beginning of Sandpiper.  But of course Chuck lacks very much empathy, and in fact when Jimmy becomes too successful is eaten up by envy which he lets overtake him, which in turn makes him sick.  I'm probably not expressing it well.  I am thoroughly enjoying the analyses here of Chuck, Jimmy and Howard, and will miss this in a few short weeks, lamentably. 

[riverheightsnancy]

 

Yes, but are you a criminal, doing criminal things that could put you away for life?  This is a whole gang, and they don't pay attention or even bother to have a look out?

Good point. Maybe they have gotten so complacent or have cops on the take, that they think that they are untouchable? There are lots of stories of people who have gotten away with criminal acts, getting bolder and bolder because they have gotten away with it thus far. Thinking that one is smarter than the cops and also really arrogant can go along with anti-social personality disorder (#1 mental illness amongst incarcerated criminals). 

[Dev F]

Random thought:  While looking at IMDB last night, I noticed that they describe BCS as taking place 6 years before the events of BB.  That makes me so confused about Kaylee.  She seems to be a much older child in BCS than what we saw in BB, yet she's supposed to be younger...6 years younger!  She only seemed to be about 5 or 6 the few times we saw her in BB, so she should be an infant, or at least a toddler in BCS.  It's just one of those things I'm not going to be able to not notice.

 

Obviously, there's going to be some inconsistency with Kaylee's age, since the actor who played her on Breaking Bad would've been several years younger in her first appearance than in her last while only a few months passed in the reality of the show. But the only definitive statement the show ever made about her age was in "Madrigal" early in the final season, when Hank explained to Mike that one of the names on Gus Fring's offshore accounts was "Kaylee Ehrmantraut. Ten years old and just cute as a button."

 

I think the writers may have subsequently retconned her Breaking Bad age by a couple more years, as I recall reading an interview with Vince Gilligan in which he describes her as a twelve-year-old in that series. Either way, she comes across as rather guileless for a tween, but her age isn't that badly out of whack.

 

But here's why HHM might not want to sully Kim. In disclosing how the documents got altered, HHM will have to disclose that the files were being stored in Chuck's house. Which could lead to it coming out why the files were being stored in Chuck's house, i.e., that he's a wack job who deceptively presented himself to them as being able to function competently on their behalf in the real world. HHM might very much want to preserve the illusion that Chuck is normal.

 

Plus, it raises the question of whether the firm has sufficient security protocols in place to protect their clients' documents. Well, not a question so much as an answer: "No they don't, because a guy who doesn't even work at the firm was able to sabotage them without anyone noticing." That's why I wouldn't be surprised if Chuck and Howard apologized to Mesa Verde for their unforgivable typographical error and fed the doctored documents right into the shredder.

[Bannon]

I think Chuck and Jimmy are more similar than they appear on the surface.  Both are smooth talkers, Chuck when he needs to be as we just saw in this episode, but not a natural charmer.  Both very smart.  Chuck has shown flashes of caring about Jimmy, as in when Jimmy got his first elder clients and Chuck eagerly dove in to help when the caseload became too great.  Also, they worked collaboratively at the beginning of Sandpiper.  But of course Chuck lacks very much empathy, and in fact when Jimmy becomes too successful is eaten up by envy which he lets overtake him, which in turn makes him sick.  I'm probably not expressing it well.  I am thoroughly enjoying the analyses here of Chuck, Jimmy and Howard, and will miss this in a few short weeks, lamentably. 

It would be consistent with other motivating events for characters in this show if it is revealed that Chuck losing his relationship with Rebecca was a major catylyst for the  severe manifestation of Chuck's mental illness, and if Jimmy played a role in that, it would add yet another layer of complexity. Howard's resentment of his father, for ending Howard's dream of an independent law career is certainly consistent with this show's theme of loss and grief  being what so frequently motivates people.

[RCharter]

Minor point, but does anybody say "Sarbox?" I worked in IT and did a TON of work with our corporate regulatory department, and it was always either full out Sarbanes-Oxley or Sox. Never heard anyone ever say Sarbox.

I've never heard of Sarbox, but it may have been Chucks small way of letting everyone in the room know he was such an ace that he knew all the hip regulatory lingo that all the cool attorneys are using.

[Ohwell]

Yeah, when Chuck said "Sarbox" I rolled my eyes.  I'm pretty sure he didn't realize how lame he sounded. 

 

ETA:  Welp, I stand corrected.  I just checked Wikipedia out of curiosity and they do include "Sarbox" as well.  I've never heard it, but maybe it's a regional thing?  

Edited April 7, 2016 by Ohwell

[ShadowFacts]

 

It would be consistent with other motivating events for characters in this show if it is revealed that Chuck losing his relationship with Rebecca was a major catylyst for the  severe manifestation of Chuck's mental illness, and if Jimmy played a role in that, it would add yet another layer of complexity. Howard's resentment of his father, for ending Howard's dream of an independent law career is certainly consistent with this show's theme of loss and grief  being what so frequently motivates people.

  

 

Oh yes, Rebecca's absence has to play out yet,  I hope it doesn't roll over til next season but there isn't much time left.  This theme of grief and loss being a motivator now has me wondering who is this truck driver whose sad face the camera lingered on at the border crossing?  Hector's son maybe? 

[Madding crowd]

I enjoyed the scene with Chuck and Mesa Verde because it showed how much alike Chuck and Jimmy really are. They are both smooth talkers who may or may not have hidden agendas. And Chuck doesn't like the parts of himself that are like Jimmy and Jimmy doesn't like the parts of himself that are like Chuck. I did wonder if Chuck could really put aside his phobia like that but I used to have panic attacks and if I had to I could hide it even during an attack.

 

I sometimes find some of Jimmy's stunts to be almost childish. He is supposed to be starting a new business yet is spending tons of time on altering documents which for all he knows won't do a thing to either Chuck or Howard. And even if the bank gets rid of HMM, there is no guarantee Kim will get the business. I used to be a VP at a Mortgage Banking firm and no way would we have a single attorney do all of the regulatory work. 

 

I thought the commercial Jimmy was shooting seemed out of place in this particular episode and is kind of the same thing as the documents: He could have just hired some actors and posed in front of a war memorial or something. He just does stupid things half hoping to be caught. 

 

I'm not as much a fan of Mike's stories as the rest of you. I loved BB and it's one of my favorite shows but I want to watch something new now and I don't care if some sign or a diner or someone's tie was like something in BB. In fact, I would be happy if Jimmy and Kim were the only BB characters and we met a lot of new people. 

 

Also, thank you to whoever who checked Patrick Fabian's age. I have long had a little crush on him and could not imagine he was any where near 69 years old!

Edited April 7, 2016 by Madding crowd

[scenario]

I'm beginning to like the idea that they don't explain Howard very much. I'm getting kind of sick of the idea that movies and shows have to explain everything. You really shouldn't have to have a Morgan Freeman voice overs to explain what you just saw happen in the movie. Reading between the lines is half the fun. If its done right you can have a bunch of different valid opinions.  

 

[shapeshifter]

Plus, it raises the question of whether the firm has sufficient security protocols in place to protect their clients' documents. Well, not a question so much as an answer: "No they don't, because a guy who doesn't even work at the firm was able to sabotage them without anyone noticing." That's why I wouldn't be surprised if Chuck and Howard apologized to Mesa Verde for their unforgivable typographical error and fed the doctored documents right into the shredder.

True. So, either the error gets caught before filing (not likely?) or it causes Mesa Verde to leave HHM. I think Jimmy realizes he could be in deep doodoo if he is caught, but is willing to do it because he believes whether or not he is caught, Kim will get Mesa Verde.

However, if the anvil of doom somehow falls on Kim too, Jimmy's sacrificial lamb act will have been in vain--and will spur on the advent of Saul.

Given the way Jimmy has frequently been snared in his own traps, I'm guessing there will be more than enough doom to spread around.

Since Chuck has seen Jimmy's penchant for shooting himself in the foot (and the metaphorical bullet ricocheting into anyone nearby) with his schemes, I think Chuck long ago went into autopilot mode to stop all and any of Jimmy's schemes.

I also think this role of the bad guy is what drove Chuck to become Mr. Baked Potato Head.

Meanwhile, Chuck's relentless campaign to save the world from Jimmy (and thereby thwart all of Jimmy's efforts) has driven Jimmy to the copy store in this episode and perhaps to stick the fatal fork into Mr. Baked Potato Head (to see if he's done yet).

[ketose]

Minor point, but does anybody say "Sarbox?" I worked in IT and did a TON of work with our corporate regulatory department, and it was always either full out Sarbanes-Oxley or Sox. Never heard anyone ever say Sarbox.

I've heard "Sarbox" but that may be a media invention, rather than an insider name.

[Umbelina]

The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub.L. 107–204, 116 Stat. 745, enacted July 30, 2002), also known as the "Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act" (in the Senate) and "Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act" (in the House) and more commonly called Sarbanes–Oxley, Sarbox or SOX ...

Sarbanes–Oxley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes–Oxley_Act

Edited April 7, 2016 by Umbelina

[J----av]

I think it's for three reasons.  First, like Walter White, Jimmy is our protagonist, and the focus of the show we're watching; even when he does bad things, we root for him over any other "bad guys", or even wryly chuckle at his clever skirting-of-the-law gimmicks.  I'll admit it always made me a little uncomfortable how much some viewers rooted for Walter or Dexter or Tony Soprano to win (and dump on the "bitches" in their lives, like poor Skyler, that somehow held them back), when they were clearly vicious and monstrous people.  Still, it's nearly impossible to not at least empathize with the protagonist of any well-written show, even when that protagonist is someone we'd run screaming from in real life. I've not seen "Hannibal" yet, but from everything I hear Mads Mikkelsen is absolutely incredible in that show, utterly captivating and impossible to look away from even as you know his character is evil personified.

 

Second, Jimmy is far more likable than Chuck or Walter ever were on their best days, and the first season made a great point of how Jimmy could even have been a solid legitimate lawyer with a little guidance from his older brother; we still see flashes of Jimmy as a decent man.  Chuck seems to irrationally resent that people like Jimmy because he's a friendly, likeable guy- Chuck is almost like the "Nice Guy " who doesn't understand why someone like Jimmy is adored by people who meet him, since in Chuck's mind Jimmy should be perpetually punished.  I'm sure I'm selectively remembering, but most of his scams so far in this series have either targeted someone who was themselves looking to pull a fast one (those scams he pulled with his Chicago friend mostly rely on another person being greedy), or a creative way to solve a problem such as drumming up business by intercepting a nursing home shuttle bus.  Morally and even legally wrong, sure- but nowhere in the league of other television anti-heroes.  

 

Three, I think the big difference between Chuck and Jimmy that affects our perception is that Jimmy knows he has the soul of a con artist but does try to have something of a moral compass when it counts- usually restricting himself to "marks" who aren't exactly noble themselves- whereas Chuck pretends he's a noble protector of the legal arts but is in many ways just as duplicitous and destructive as Jimmy.  Chuck uses his supposed veneration for the law as cover for the fact that he has abused Jimmy's fraternal generosity for years, and still secretly sabotaged him ruthlessly at every opportunity.  

 

Chuck is at heart a bitter hypocrite about his entire self, whereas Jimmy is a self-aware comical scamp.  People always enjoy the exploits of the playful trickster character.

 

 Agree with pretty much everything you said. And i get why people root for Jimmy and not Chuck (i do too). I am just saying Jimmy is not this good guy who was pushed into doing bad things by his evil brother Chuck (although Chuck didn't help). People seem desperate to make Jimmy a good guy. People expecting to find out Jimmy was secretly helping his father by taking money or that Chuck completely lied about the story are kidding themselves. Chuck definitely believes the story he told Kim and Jimmy definitely was taking advantage of his father in some way   

[J----av]

I never said Jimmy=Good. Jimmy's a con artist at heart, but he is one who labored, ethically and tirelessly, for years in a mail room, while getting a law degree (a profession he has some skill at) because he wanted (desperately) his brother's approval. In other words, Chuck had it it perfectly within his circle of competence to manipulate Jimmy to good ends, keeping Jimmy on the right side of the line, if Chuck wasn't not only an A-hole, but a stupid and lazy A-hole. Chuck's getting paid a sh*tload of money to manage a law firm. Earning his sh*tload of money not only entails being a great lawyer (which he is), but also using his considerable intelligence to recognize the easily observable fact that although Jimmy has had real history of not conforming to rules, he had been doing so for years, solely because he valued Chuck's approval above anything, and that Jimmy is smart, and that Jimmy is capable of working enormously hard. In other words, Jimmy is a flawed asset with great potential value to the firm that Chuck is geting paid a sh*tload of money to manage, if only Chuck will do his damned job. That's the irony. Chuck's the guy, not Jimmy, who first failed in his professional responsibilities to HHM, by stupidly, stupidly, stupidly, frittering away his ability to manipulate Jimmy, via idiotic backstabbing dishonesty.

 

 I think its safe to say there was a pretty good chance Jimmy would NOT "stay on the right side of the line" for long. Even when he though Chuck had his back and he thought Chuck was proud of him he was still doing shady things and was constantly tempted to be his old "Slippin Jimmy" self. It likely would have taken longer, but Jimmy was becoming Saul (or at least Slippin Jimmy) no matter what Chuck did

[xyzzy]

 I think its safe to say there was a pretty good chance Jimmy would NOT "stay on the right side of the line" for long. Even when he though Chuck had his back and he thought Chuck was proud of him he was still doing shady things and was constantly tempted to be his old "Slippin Jimmy" self. It likely would have taken longer, but Jimmy was becoming Saul (or at least Slippin Jimmy) no matter what Chuck did

 

Sure, with the benefit of watching a prequel to a series where Saul is an established character, we all know that Slippin' Jimmy/Saul Goodman are endgame. However, the interesting thing to me is that Chuck's machinations seem to hasten the emergence of Saul. We have evidence, on this show, that Jimmy can and will do the right thing even if Chuck knows nothing about it. No Chuck pressure to speak of. To wit: he and Mike dealt with the Kettleman money with much more integrity than Chuck would have believed possible from Slippin' Jimmy. To the point where he even throws in his own cash to square things up. He spent years doing a shitty mailroom job while working on a law degree in an effort to show his brother that he could fly straight after his most recent bailout. If we extract BrBa from the equation, I don't think that Jimmy's downfall was necessarily written in stone.

 

Would Walter White have become Heisenberg without cancer? Would Jimmy have become Saul without Chuck? That's what I think episodes like Fifi really dig into. If we could magically roll back Chuck's betrayal, I see no reason why Jimmy wouldn't have an office and still be trying to be a good boy for Chuck. In this episode we really see Jimmy being a criminal lawyer. And why? To get back at Chuck.

[millennium]

This episode felt like half a meal, if that.   But it tasted good.

[TVFan17]

I'm not as much a fan of Mike's stories as the rest of you. I loved BB and it's one of my favorite shows but I want to watch something new now and I don't care if some sign or a diner or someone's tie was like something in BB. In fact, I would be happy if Jimmy and Kim were the only BB characters and we met a lot of new people. 

 

Kim wasn't on Breaking Bad.  Did you mean Jimmy and Mike?

 

I don't think we are anywhere close to being done with the BB callbacks, references, Easter eggs, cameo appearances, subplots and so on -- in fact, they seem to have increased this year from what they were last season. 

[Bannon]

I think its safe to say there was a pretty good chance Jimmy would NOT "stay on the right side of the line" for long. Even when he though Chuck had his back and he thought Chuck was proud of him he was still doing shady things and was constantly tempted to be his old "Slippin Jimmy" self. It likely would have taken longer, but Jimmy was becoming Saul (or at least Slippin Jimmy) no matter what Chuck did[/quote?

Jimmy stayed on the right side, for years, working his a$$ off, not because he has any consistent virtue, but because he valued, above absolutely anything, the approval of his older brother. Chuck threw away his most effective tool in managing Jimmy.

[Bannon]

I also have to say that the reason I didn't think Chuck was telling a truthful story to Kim about Chuck's father, and Jimmy's behavior, was not because I was rooting for Jimmy, but because it simply isn't credible that a guy who grew up in Cicero, IL, in the 1st half of the 20th century, who became a small retailer in Cicero in the 1950s or 1960s, could be such a soft touch, and if he was, that he could stay in business for more than a few months. A guy like that , in that place, would have been chewed up and spitted out before Jimmy made it to 2nd grade. If the writers leave that backstory as it now stands, they really have written something that is wildly at odds with reality. It won't prevent me from enjoying the show, but it isn't good story execution.

[Captanne]

Yeah, that's why I no longer care about Howard.  The writers can do anything with him, and until they do?  Fuck it.  I'm not going to play guessing games. For a character that is on screen in nearly every episode, he's nothing but plot driven.  His actions impact events in Saul/Jimmy's life.  Nothing more.

 

 

I completely agree.  To give the actor credit, though, in this last episode -- during Kim's exit interview, I noticed some depth to Howard.  Every time he mentioned his father, there was deep hesitation and he seemed distracted by strange thoughts/memories.  For now, because we know nothing else, I have to attribute it to the cliche, "I wanted to follow my dreams of rainbows and unicorns but Mean Old Daddy made me join the firm and pushed me straight into starched collars and spit-shined oxfords."  Which is just cliche and boring and lazy.

 

I would love to come up with something more exotic for Howard but this is what the writers have left me with.  I don't have any tools to base a really great (i.e., non-cliche) story on.  They've given me nothing but a plastic Ken doll.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Captanne

[Milburn Stone]

To give the actor credit, though, in this last episode -- during Kim's exit interview, I noticed some depth to Howard...

 

To give the actor (and the writers) more credit, I'd add that I found him very convincing during the whole "freeze-out" period with Kim that preceded this--the part that began after she was brought back up from document-review hell. That whole "I'm going to treat you with just enough perfunctory courtesy to torture you into thinking you have a future here, even though you don't"--that's exactly how something like that would look. 

[Captanne]

I was disappointed by "Howard" (in quotes because I mean the direction and, if that was the direction, then the actor is absolved, if not, then the actor is also responsible) with the whole "freeze out" methodology.  I've been a practicing tort-litigating attorney in a Major American Metropolitan Area for ten years during the 90s until 9/11 when I was activated in the National Guard, and I've seen plenty of law firm bad behaviour but nothing like that. 

 

I've never seen a named partner abuse an associate the way the character did in this story.  And having him behave like an automaton (to wit, the "stand and pose when the new fancy clients came to interview the firm" business was surreal and, imo, just plain weird.)  I emphasize abuse because humiliating her like that was emotionally abusive, automaton and weird because that's what autonomic behaviour as a practicing partner in a thriving law firm is -- plain old weird.

[ShadowFacts]

I was disappointed by "Howard" (in quotes because I mean the direction and, if that was the direction, then the actor is absolved, if not, then the actor is also responsible) with the whole "freeze out" methodology.  I've been a practicing tort-litigating attorney in a Major American Metropolitan Area for ten years during the 90s until 9/11 when I was activated in the National Guard, and I've seen plenty of law firm bad behaviour but nothing like that. 

 

I've never seen a named partner abuse an associate the way the character did in this story.  And having him behave like an automaton (to wit, the "stand and pose when the new fancy clients came to interview the firm" business was surreal and, imo, just plain weird.)  I emphasize abuse because humiliating her like that was emotionally abusive, automaton and weird because that's what autonomic behaviour as a practicing partner in a thriving law firm is -- plain old weird.

 

That behavior seemed almost designed to make Kim want to leave, it was that uncalled for.  And it had the desired effect.  Howard wasn't at all surprised, just wanted to know if it was Schweikert she was going to.  It doesn't square with what Chuck said about Howard bending over backwards to make associates happy.  At all.  Yet, he immediately forgives the loan and says she earned it.  It is very weird all around.  There's a piece missing to the puzzle.

[attica]

I agree that Chuck's mental illness, and it is a mental illness, isn't one that impairs his lawyering ability.  He can get the job done just fine with the lights off.

 

Except dealing with the client is part of the skill set required for a lawyer in Chuck's position. Not many clients are gonna be interested in the AntiElectrical Theater that is interacting with Chuck.  Of course, Chuck's ego will be the thing that gets him freed of that need, if anything can.

[Bannon]

I was disappointed by "Howard" (in quotes because I mean the direction and, if that was the direction, then the actor is absolved, if not, then the actor is also responsible) with the whole "freeze out" methodology.  I've been a practicing tort-litigating attorney in a Major American Metropolitan Area for ten years during the 90s until 9/11 when I was activated in the National Guard, and I've seen plenty of law firm bad behaviour but nothing like that. 

 

I've never seen a named partner abuse an associate the way the character did in this story.  And having him behave like an automaton (to wit, the "stand and pose when the new fancy clients came to interview the firm" business was surreal and, imo, just plain weird.)  I emphasize abuse because humiliating her like that was emotionally abusive, automaton and weird because that's what autonomic behaviour as a practicing partner in a thriving law firm is -- plain old weird.

Abusive behavior like that isn't just weird; it's idiotic. Which is why I think that the best story resolution is for HHM to go over a cliff. A big law firm isn't like a big retailer, which nearly inevitably takes a long time to fail. A big law firm, or big accounting firm, can fail very, very, quickly, because so much of the value of the enterprise is tied up in a reputation which is ultimately pretty fragile. I think that process could credibly begin in the next episode, with the firm at the "everybody put their personal belongings in a cardboard box, and head out to the parking lot" stage, by the beginning of episode 1 next season. If Jimmy plays a large role in that carnage, which must be remembered, would be hugely damaging to many wholly innocent HHM employees, I think that would be terrific storytelling.

[dinkysquid]

Man, Chuck is a prick! He just loves to stick it to Jimmy every chance he gets! If I were Jimmy, when Chuck was lying there "like a baked potato", I would have gathered up anything electrical, plugged it in and put it on/near him. Take that, asshole!

 

 

[hoosiermommy]

So, in my line of business (employee benefits), employees with client contact (brokers, account executives, etc) usually sign contracts with non-compete clauses. Is this not part of a law firm's contract? Because as Kim was doing her thing, all I could think of was, "Does she not have a non-compete? Why does she not have a non-compete?!?!?!"

Though I wish she had taken Jimmy's Mad Men style advice and just slipped the note under the door. Especially if she didn't have a non-compete.

[carrps]

Yeah, when Chuck said "Sarbox" I rolled my eyes.  I'm pretty sure he didn't realize how lame he sounded. 

 

ETA:  Welp, I stand corrected.  I just checked Wikipedia out of curiosity and they do include "Sarbox" as well.  I've never heard it, but maybe it's a regional thing?  

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes–Oxley_Act

No! Gilligan edited Wikipedia to say that!!! :-)

 

Heh, well, learn something new every day.

Edited April 8, 2016 by carrps

[SnarkyTart]

That makes so much sense! If Chuck's preparing the paperwork at home, then he is typing it. Making it that much harder for the error to be discovered (if the paperwork hasn't been submitted) and then when it is, making Chuck appear off of his legal game.

I would guess, too, that there must be some kind of reasonable expectation that sensitive legal documents of a large bank would contain privileged information that requires it to be stored in a secure location and only accessible by certain designated employees.

 

Surely there would be legal, if not criminal, negligence if a member of the firm were taking file boxes full of the bank's documents home with him/her.  If HHM discloses that the files were tampered with off-site, someone is going to be interested to know what other client files HHM allows employees or associates to remove from the premises.

[shapeshifter]

Surely there would be legal, if not criminal, negligence if a member of the firm were taking file boxes full of the bank's documents home with him/her.  If HHM discloses that the files were tampered with off-site, someone is going to be interested to know what other client files HHM allows employees or associates to remove from the premises.

I seem to recall an exchange between Howard and Chuck (or maybe Jimmy and Chuck or Omar and Chuck) awhile back in which Howard/Jimmy/Omar was noticing for the first time that Chuck had brought files home and was surprised. Anyone else recall?

[Clanstarling]

I seem to recall an exchange between Howard and Chuck (or maybe Jimmy and Chuck or Omar and Chuck) awhile back in which Howard/Jimmy/Omar was noticing for the first time that Chuck had brought files home and was surprised. Anyone else recall?

I don't remember, but it never occurred to me that it wasn't known and completely accepted by Howard. Just another way they're not letting clients know how Chuck's condition is impacting them.

I'm not sure I completely understand the ramifications, does this mean that even without Jimmy's interference, they've been at least borderline unethical?

[rollerblade]

The episode reminded of classic Breaking Bad especially the opening sequence and the copy shop scenes.  Did anyone notice Howard's purple tie and the touches of purple around HHM?  A shout out to Marie?

 

It's Hamlindigo Blue, sir/ma'am.

[Umbelina]

 

I would love to come up with something more exotic for Howard but this is what the writers have left me with.  I don't have any tools to base a really great (i.e., non-cliche) story on.  They've given me nothing but a plastic Ken doll.

Thank you Thank you Thank you!

 

Howard is a Ken Doll. 

 

They, and we, can play with him and make him into anything we want, because that's exactly how much depth and exactly how interesting he is.  We can project anything we wish on to Ken Doll, and Ken doll, without any motivation, can do anything the writers want him to do, which apparently, right now is putting Kim in Jimmy's lap.

 

We had a scene when Ken Doll told Kim it was all Chuck, as far as getting Jimmy out.  Was it even true?  Who knows?  We just had a scene where Ken Doll guessed accurately which firm Kim was considering joining.  Did Ken Doll set that up somehow or did he just guess?  We know Chuck didn't do it, though many here suspected it, because he was legitimately surprised when Ken Doll told him that.  Is Ken Doll going to take the fall for other Chuck misdeeds?  I hope not because as much as the writers seem to want to redeem Chuck?  No. That won't happen, they've gone much, much too far in showing us exactly who Chuck is already.  If they try to ret con that, they will be making a mistake.

 

As far as would Jimmy always be bad, was slippin' Jimmy inevitable, and completely a character flaw in Jimmy, while blameless Chuck did everything right?

 

 

Jimmy stayed on the right side, for years, working his a$$ off, not because he has any consistent virtue, but because he valued, above absolutely anything, the approval of his older brother. Chuck threw away his most effective tool in managing Jimmy.

 

 

That's it exactly.  How many similar situations could have occurred while they were kids?  Chuck has a sick vested interest in keeping Jimmy down, and has since the little brat entered his life and ruined it when he was a child.  He's jealous, and vindictive and loves to play the hero.  Jimmy could have well started as a mischievous, precocious, and fun little boy that people loved and enjoyed.  Chuck has told us how much he hated that, sibling rivalry taken to the 99th percentile, but only on Chuck's part.  Jimmy loved and admired him.  Chuck was much older, so I can completely believe he crafted ways for Jimmy to be "bad" and "fail" simply to get the lion's share of his parents, their love, their care.   After all, babies need more care too.  All of that time taken away from Chuck, to change diapers and coo over the first word!  TRAITORS! 

 

So, yeah, after watching Chuck, I can believe this started long ago.  Slipping Jimmy was made, he wasn't born that way, and I think Chuck, because he HATES him and always has?  Could have had quite a bit to do with that. 

 

All because Chuck wanted all the love, admiration, and attention on himself, and hated Jimmy from the moment they brought him home from the hospital and didn't have time to look at his science project or whatever.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Umbelina

[Bannon]

I don't remember, but it never occurred to me that it wasn't known and completely accepted by Howard. Just another way they're not letting clients know how Chuck's condition is impacting them.

I'm not sure I completely understand the ramifications, does this mean that even without Jimmy's interference, they've been at least borderline unethical?

Yeah, if any of those documents are sensitive, as is very likely the case, allowing them to be taken to a mentally ill guy's house, who doesn't keep the door locked, would be unethically negligent.

[Bannon]

By the way, if anybody wants to get a sense of how wildy unlikely it is that the softest of soft touches, as Chuck and Jimmy's father was portrayed to be in the short flashback, could operate a retail establishment in Cicero, IL, in the 1950s-1970s, until Chuck was all grown up, and Jimmy approaching adulthood, examine this timeline....

 

http://www.ipsn.org/cicero/cicero_history_of_corruption.htm

 

.....of organized crime in Cicero. The only way Chuck and Jimmy's dad stayed open, while being the sort of sap that Chuck portrayed him to be, in his story to Kim, is if the Chicago Outfit, then run by Sam Giacana, got their hooks in, and thus told the small time grifters victimizing  Chuck and Jimmy's dad to stay clear, or get clipped. If the Outfit had their hooks in, there wouldn't have been enough excess cash flow for Jimmy to steal thousands of dollars.

 

I trust Gilligan and Co., for now, to not make this sort of fundamental error of time, place, and culture. It would be like having the Salamanca family be Mormons. I think there is more to this backstory which will be revealed. 

[J----av]

Sure, with the benefit of watching a prequel to a series where Saul is an established character, we all know that Slippin' Jimmy/Saul Goodman are endgame. However, the interesting thing to me is that Chuck's machinations seem to hasten the emergence of Saul. We have evidence, on this show, that Jimmy can and will do the right thing even if Chuck knows nothing about it. No Chuck pressure to speak of. To wit: he and Mike dealt with the Kettleman money with much more integrity than Chuck would have believed possible from Slippin' Jimmy. To the point where he even throws in his own cash to square things up. He spent years doing a shitty mailroom job while working on a law degree in an effort to show his brother that he could fly straight after his most recent bailout. If we extract BrBa from the equation, I don't think that Jimmy's downfall was necessarily written in stone.

 

Would Walter White have become Heisenberg without cancer? Would Jimmy have become Saul without Chuck? That's what I think episodes like Fifi really dig into. If we could magically roll back Chuck's betrayal, I see no reason why Jimmy wouldn't have an office and still be trying to be a good boy for Chuck. In this episode we really see Jimmy being a criminal lawyer. And why? To get back at Chuck.

 

 But during that time when he was trying to fly straight he was still tempted (and did at times) do shady Saul like things all the time. Maybe if Chuck was not such an ass he would have never fully turned Saul Goodman, but Jimmy was never going to straighten out and do things by the book. Chuck or not, Jimmy loves his Saul Goodman side