S03.E10: Lantern

[Bryce Lynch]

2 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

His psychosomatic pain is classic secondary gain in medical terms, which is a classic control issue for patients.  They can't control or deal with things in their life so they create a passive aggressive way of trying to control those around them to help themselves, often leading to extreme problems and adjustments for everyone else besides them. 

And EVERYONE told him it was psychiatric and he refused to believe it or come to terms with it, insisting it was a physical problem and never seeking appropriate treatment for it.  He knew better than everyone else and just expected everyone to accept, come to terms with it and adjust to him.  Control freak. 

I don't recall anyone telling Chuck is was psychosomatic until the doctor in the ER did.  I'm not sure she even told him directly or if she only told Jimmy.   For most of the series, Jimmy seemed to treat it like a physical illness or at least humor Chuck into thinking he believed it was physical.  Howard was a little harder to read, but I got no indication that he ever told Chuck it was all in his head.  

Once, he realized it might be psychosomatic, after the battery trick, Chuck did seek help.   

You are assuming that Chuck's mental illness was about controlling others. but I have seen no evidence of this.  He seemed to be pretty much IN control before the problem started, prominent attorney, head of a large, prestigious law firm.  He didn't get there with through an imagined allergy.

[Bryce Lynch]

4 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

There's a lot of accuracy in what you say, however Chuck is absolutely, most sincerely a control freak.  Think back to the flashback we saw where Rebecca was going to meet Jimmy for the first time.  Chuck was definitely attempting to shape and define her impression before Jimmy arrived.  I believe he was even micromanaging her part in cooking the meal.   He was seriously displeased at dinner and after Jimmy left that Rebecca found Jimmy funny -- that was not the agreed upon narrative.  Look at what happened in the Mesa Verde hearing when the transposition of numbers was raised -- he attempted to shut down anyone else from speaking because HE knew the real facts.  Would Chuck stand for someone else trying to limit the terms of his relationship with someone he was about to meet if his impressions were different?  No.  Would Chuck be willing to sit back silently while someone he was working with indulged their arrogance in an insistence they could never have made the mistake and everyone should defer to that opinion?  No.  That was not the time nor place for that attitude and did not serve his client's interests and the outcome might have been different if he had fallen on his sword in the moment and dealt with what really had gone wrong later.     

I actually believe Chuck's illness is intertwined with his control tendencies.  He attempts to convince himself and everyone else that he is the smartest guy in the room and always is the good guy.  He cannot face the reality when his own motives are less than pure, however he cannot deny them entirely either, hence the illness.   It's no coincidence he unspooled so badly after saying what he did to Jimmy.  He knows what he said is not the truth.  Jimmy may have his faults and flaws, even Jimmy will concede that.  But the situation between Chuck and Jimmy emanates from some long-seeded resentment that only Chuck knew existed, one that it's doubtful a nine year old boy actually instigated.   This week's flashback showed us Chuck loved his little brother.  I don't believe a nine year old's actions could have destroyed that.  I do believe something happened to rock Chuck's world to the core and lit the fuse of resentment -- and probably set him on a path to make sure his world would never be out of his control again. 

He might have been a little bit controlling in the dinner with Jimmy and Rebecca, but I saw that more as jealousy than control. I think he was upset that his ne're do well little brother had charmed his wife and that she couldn't see through him the way he did.

As far as the MV hearing goes, a) Chuck was already affected by the mental illness at that point b) He KNEW he didn't screw up the papers, "One after Magna Carta!"  In his mind (and probably in reality) it was impossible that he could have transposed the numbers.  He knew the Magna Carta was signed in 1215 ,not 1260.   If he hadn't thought  that while going through the papers, he probably still would have had a hard time believing he messed it up, but he would have at least thought it possible.  

[Tikichick]

1 minute ago, Bryce Lynch said:

He might have been a little bit controlling in the dinner with Jimmy and Rebecca, but I saw that more as jealousy than control. I think he was upset that his ne're do well little brother had charmed his wife and that she couldn't see through him the way he did.

As far as the MV hearing goes, a) Chuck was already affected by the mental illness at that point b) He KNEW he didn't screw up the papers, "One after Magna Carta!"  In his mind (and probably in reality) it was impossible that he could have transposed the numbers.  He knew the Magna Carta was signed in 1215 ,not 1260.   If he hadn't thought  that while going through the papers, he probably still would have had a hard time believing he messed it up, but he would have at least thought it possible.  

I didn't say Chuck was incorrect about the Mesa Verde documents.  I said that wasn't the time or the place to insist you are right, could never have made the mistake -- and do so by shutting everyone else down, including your colleagues and client.  Yes, he absolutely was affected by the mental illness, part of which is extreme control tendencies, commonly referred to as being a control freak.

[ShadowFacts]

Chuck looks like a perfectionist.  What perfectionist doesn't look a little like they must be in control?  Wanting a dinner to go a certain way doesn't = control freak.  Unraveling at a regulatory hearing gets a little closer.  It made it kind of heartbreaking to me that he was brought to that by Jimmy's devious criminal behavior.  Since it was stated that his symptoms came on after the divorce, that stress must have been a triggering event of his eventual phobia.  One of the many interviews I've recently read, I'm pretty sure it was Michael McKean who said it -- Jimmy is a scapegoat.  Chuck is scapegoating Jimmy with whatever his problems are.  Jimmy is a natural enough screw-up, he is close, he becomes the focus of Chuck's inability to face what's going on with himself.  What's sad is that it was a really huge step, a relinquinshing of his control, that he made that call to Dr. Cruz and entered treatment.  Sad that it was derailed, irrevocably it seems, by another triggering event, that of the "retirement."  He might have brought it on himself, yes, but he was facing his illness and might have been restored to some better state of health, had Jimmy not dropped a dime, so to speak, on Santa Rosa insurance. 

[nodorothyparker]

If there was any doubt about the level of control Chuck exerted over all things, the scene of a Sandpaper meeting at HHM last season when an entire law firm shut off all lights necessary to do regular business while all partners' and staff's electronics alike were collected into plastic bins so he could sit smugly at the end of a conference table seemingly to contribute nothing beyond being there to nitpick Jimmy as a new D&M hire would have sold me.  At every step along the way, he's expected all of these accommodations to be made for him as a matter of course.    Everyone was expected to dance in attendance to him. 

[benteen]

4 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

If there was any doubt as the level of control Chuck exerted over all things, the scene of a Sandpaper meeting at HHM last season when an entire law firm shut off all lights necessary to do regular business while all partners' and staff's electronics alike were collected into plastic bins so he could sit smugly at the end of a conference table seemingly to contribute nothing beyond being there to nitpick Jimmy as a new D&M hire would have sold me.  At every step along the way, he's expected all of these accommodations to be made for him as a matter of course.    Everyone was expected to dance in attendance to him. 

THIS.

I agree that Chuck was right not to hire Jimmy when he got his law license but he should have had the guts to tell Jimmy himself instead of sending Howard to do his dirty work and take the fall.  I won't defend Chuck from blocking Jimmy for working for HHM when he brought them the Sandpiper case.

Edited June 23, 2017 by benteen

[Bryce Lynch]

2 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

If there was any doubt as the level of control Chuck exerted over all things, the scene of a Sandpaper meeting at HHM last season when an entire law firm shut off all lights necessary to do regular business while all partners' and staff's electronics alike were collected into plastic bins so he could sit smugly at the end of a conference table seemingly to contribute nothing beyond being there to nitpick Jimmy as a new D&M hire would have sold me.  At every step along the way, he's expected all of these accommodations to be made for him as a matter of course.    Everyone was expected to dance in attendance to him. 

I'm not sure that was Chuck being controlling as much as Howard and everyone else being overly accommodating.  To the extent he was being controlling, he was trying to control Jimmy's association with HHM, which is something he had good reason to want to keep a close eye on, if he couldn't totally prevent it any longer.  

His "nitpicking" of Jimmy was actually constructive (whether or not that was Chuck's intent) as Jimmy was illegally soliciting and that could have ended up biting HHM and D&M in the butt, if Chuck had not nipped it in the bud.  

3 minutes ago, benteen said:

THIS.

I agree that Chuck was right not to hire Jimmy when he got his law license but he should have had the guts to tell Jimmy himself instead of sending Howard to do his dirty work and take the fall.  I won't defend Chuck from blocking Jimmy for working for HHM when he brought them the Sandpiper case.

Why not?  HHM was still Chuck's firm and had his name on it.  He knew Jimmy with a law license was a "chimp with a machine gun" and he didn't want that armed chimp running around his law firm.

[Bryce Lynch]

28 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

I didn't say Chuck was incorrect about the Mesa Verde documents.  I said that wasn't the time or the place to insist you are right, could never have made the mistake -- and do so by shutting everyone else down, including your colleagues and client.  Yes, he absolutely was affected by the mental illness, part of which is extreme control tendencies, commonly referred to as being a control freak.

While Chuck should have handled that better, he was 100% sure the documents he worked off said "1216".  So, when Paige told him it was 1261, to Chuck, it was like she was insisting MV was opening a chicken restaurant instead of a bank branch at the location.   She HAD to be wrong....except, Jimmy. :)

Funny, until now I didn't make the connection between Chuck shutting down Paige and Kim snapping at her over the loan to deposit rates in Utah.  

[benteen]

22 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I'm not sure that was Chuck being controlling as much as Howard and everyone else being overly accommodating.  To the extent he was being controlling, he was trying to control Jimmy's association with HHM, which is something he had good reason to want to keep a close eye on, if he couldn't totally prevent it any longer.  

His "nitpicking" of Jimmy was actually constructive (whether or not that was Chuck's intent) as Jimmy was illegally soliciting and that could have ended up biting HHM and D&M in the butt, if Chuck had not nipped it in the bud.  

Why not?  HHM was still Chuck's firm and had his name on it.  He knew Jimmy with a law license was a "chimp with a machine gun" and he didn't want that armed chimp running around his law firm.

And he again let Howard do his dirty work.  He liked Jimmy being his servant while he hid behind his mental illness.  That was good enough for Chuck.  But not Jimmy working at his law firm.

[Bryce Lynch]

12 minutes ago, benteen said:

And he again let Howard do his dirty work.  He liked Jimmy being his servant while he hid behind his mental illness.  That was good enough for Chuck.  But not Jimmy working at his law firm.

He shouldn't have sent Howard to do his dirty work.  That said, since finding out Chuck didn't want him in the firm was what caused Jimmy to backslide, perhaps telling Jimmy himself would have been worse for Jimmy.

[smorbie]

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

That made me wonder about why he chose to do it by kicking over the lantern and dying a horrific death in a fire instead of something less painful.  Was he trying to make it look like an accident?  If so, why?  Was he trying to make it even worse on Jimmy and Howard?  Something else?

People in that state are beyond thought and rational reasoning.

[PeterPirate]

1 hour ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

His psychosomatic pain is classic secondary gain in medical terms, which is a classic control issue for patients.  They can't control or deal with things in their life so they create a passive aggressive way of trying to control those around them to help themselves, often leading to extreme problems and adjustments for everyone else besides them. 

And EVERYONE told him it was psychiatric and he refused to believe it or come to terms with it, insisting it was a physical problem and never seeking appropriate treatment for it.  He knew better than everyone else and just expected everyone to accept, come to terms with it and adjust to him.  Control freak. 

One has to wonder if Chuck would have developed his neurosis if Jimmy was not around. Chuck had control over a large firm that needed lots of control.   

Now that I think about it, I like this scenario. We wouldn't need a lot of flashback scenes showing problems in the McGill household. Maybe just a short scene where the ER doc provides exposition about how Chuck had Munch's Syndrome, which is a variant of Munchausen's Syndrome in which the patient fakes an illness to get attention and also acts like an asshole from Baltimore. 

 

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I also noticed how the actors talked about the characters as if they were really them, especially Fabian.  I started to get annoyed with Fabian for being so smug and self righteous, on behalf of Howard, for what he had done to Chuck. :)

I don't watch much TV, this is the first time I've seen Patrick Fabian in anything. I have the sense that he is used to getting a lot of roles as a good-looking jerk. I'll bet he loves being the good guy. 

Edited June 23, 2017 by PeterPirate

[Bryce Lynch]

7 minutes ago, smorbie said:

People in that state are beyond thought and rational reasoning.

I think you can be irrational, but still have an agenda and reasons for doing the doing the things you and the way you do them.

[rue721]

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

You are assuming that Chuck's mental illness was about controlling others. but I have seen no evidence of this.  He seemed to be pretty much IN control before the problem started, prominent attorney, head of a large, prestigious law firm.

Until his mother died, his wife left him, Jimmy passed the bar (and quit HHM to work the public defender overflow)...All those events seem to have happened within a year or two of each other, and they were all catastrophes (in Chuck's perspective) that were out of Chuck's control. Chuck got thrown for a loop and couldn't cope, apparently.

37 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

While Chuck should have handled that better, he was 100% sure the documents he worked off said "1216".  So, when Paige told him it was 1261, to Chuck, it was like she was insisting MV was opening a chicken restaurant instead of a bank branch at the location.   She HAD to be wrong....except, Jimmy. :)

Yes, Chuck was correct. But he didn't have to insist that everyone know that. He could have just tried to direct the conversation away from who was to blame, or even taken on the blame himself. But since when does Chuck have any social grace, so...

Like with most things, the problem wasn't the crime, it was the cover up. Making a transposition error on important documents is bad. Refusing to be the boss and take responsibility for it, and right in front of the judge and client no less, is even worse, though. That's what really did him in. Plus, he made it into a battle of wills with Paige, and Paige was really not having that.

By the way, do you remember Saul Goodman's intro in Breaking Bad? He had Badger confused with someone who'd been accused of public masturbation, supposedly also because of a "transposition error." Just funny how everything gets blamed on a "transposition error" with Jimmy! Anyway.

13 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

He shouldn't have sent Howard to do his dirty work.  That said, since finding out Chuck didn't want him in the firm was what caused Jimmy to backslide, perhaps telling Jimmy himself would have been worse for Jimmy.

I think it would have been worse for Chuck, not Jimmy. Even if Chuck figured that Jimmy would forgive him (which I think he would have anyway), it would have changed how the rest of the firm saw him, too. It's one thing if the petty, silver-spoon douchebag partner, Howard, blocks Jimmy from advancement. But Jimmy's own brother? That's a different story. At best, Chuck wouldn't look very supportive or magnanimous.

[smorbie]

21 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I think you can be irrational, but still have an agenda and reasons for doing the doing the things you and the way you do them.

Yeah, when I reread it just now I saw I had left out part of my thought.  I meant to say they are often beyond reason and rational thought.  Suicide is usually the act of someone who feels trapped and without a viable future.

That said, there certainly are people who plan and orchestrate their deaths for other reasons, but that's typically not the case.

And I don't see Chuck's suicide being of that type, either.  For one thing he wouldn't have done it that way.  That's just a horrible way to die; he's too smart not to have thought that through.

For another, the way he was kicking that table.  I've said before it appeared to me as a way of distancing himself from the act.  I would bet he didn't intend to do that even when he sat down.  I think he just sat there in the ruin of his house, looking at everything the lantern represented.  Probably the first table kick was in frustration at the lantern, anger that it was once again in his house.  But, then an idea dawned.  And it really wouldn't be his fault if he "accidentally" kicked the table so hard he dislodged the lantern, would it?

I can just see the wheels in his mind turning as he did it.

[rue721]

3 minutes ago, smorbie said:

I would bet he didn't intend to do that even when he sat down.

I thought he had tied himself to the chair, so that he'd have to go through with it? I thought that was why he was kicking the lantern to knock it over, too (instead of just throwing it down).

If he did tie himself to the chair, the firefighters might be able to tell that and would know it was a suicide (or suicide attempt).

[luna1122]

30 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

 

I don't watch much TV, this is the first time I've seen Patrick Fabian in anything. I have the sense that he is used to getting a lot of roles as a good-looking jerk. I'll bet he loves being the good guy. 

I first saw him on a soap, where he played a cute high school teacher who a teenager believed might have been her rapist (she never saw him), but wasn't. I had a little crush on him. He's since been in, apparently, just about every TV show that's ever been made, but what I really knew him from was Veronica Mars, where he played a hot college prof who was sleeping with the dean's wife and was accused of murder. He was NOT a good guy in that series, but he was sexy, smart and compelling. Howard is not sexy but he is still compelling. I'm a little touched by how passionately he wants Howard to be seen as a good guy, really.

[nept1]

This might have been said before, but in the BCS Insider Podcast Vince strongly implied that this was the end of Chuck. The ending of this episode really got to me. I kinda feel sad that Chuck wont be around anymore and I can't make up my mind about liking him or not...

Michael McKean has truly been an amazing actor in this show, feels like a modern masterpiece!

[Lurky McLurkerson]

56 minutes ago, rue721 said:

I thought he had tied himself to the chair, so that he'd have to go through with it? I thought that was why he was kicking the lantern to knock it over, too (instead of just throwing it down).

If he did tie himself to the chair, the firefighters might be able to tell that and would know it was a suicide (or suicide attempt).

My working conspiracy theory is that, if Chuck was tied to the chair, it's a final attempt to sabotage Jimmy -- who would want to harm Chuck but his ne'er-do-well little brother with a prior plea for an assault against him?  And the fire would leave only bits of the rope so it wouldn't be obviously it was self-tied.  (Complete speculation, and I'm not even sure that I think he was tied to the chair, but I think Chuck's deteriorate to the point of martyring himself to take Jimmy down.)

[Jextella]

I'm no pro but have had some experience with certain kinds of addictions and mental health issues.  I recall a young girl I knew who suffered from eating disorders.  Her psychiatrist (or psychologist....can never get the two straight) said it was in response to volatile parents.  Eating was the one thing she could control.  The other outcome was that it was the only way for the parents to notice her.  The parents fought all the time and attention was always on each other - but never on the kids.  The behavior was tantamount to waving a red flag....and yelling "help me".

The control issue seems similar to the discussion about Chuck.  Seems he is smart and talented enough to control his destiny, who he surrounds himself with, etc. very well.   At some point, however, things became too much for him to control and he crumbled.  Latching on to the illness put that control back in his hands.  Not a good thing but control regardless. It brought order back to Chuck's world.  

Another concept that's been tossed around in discussions about Chuck is enablement.  Thinking of the young girl using an eating disorder as a cry for love, attention, and help is perhaps similar to what Chuck was doing as well.   It's been said Jimmy and Howard enabled Chuck - rather than helped him (kinda like the doctor said to Jimmy!).  Neither of the two people Chuck cared about got him help.   They let him go under.  Although not intentionally.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Jextella

[Jextella]

1 hour ago, luna1122 said:

I first saw him on a soap, where he played a cute high school teacher who a teenager believed might have been her rapist (she never saw him), but wasn't. I had a little crush on him. He's since been in, apparently, just about every TV show that's ever been made, but what I really knew him from was Veronica Mars, where he played a hot college prof who was sleeping with the dean's wife and was accused of murder. He was NOT a good guy in that series, but he was sexy, smart and compelling. Howard is not sexy but he is still compelling. I'm a little touched by how passionately he wants Howard to be seen as a good guy, really.

Yeah, all the other characters on BCS are terrific, but Howard (and Patrick Fabian) is high on my list.  I just find the character to be fascinating and that there is more to the Howard story that could be told - esp. with his Dad and Chuck.  

Edited June 23, 2017 by Jextella

[Eulipian 5k]

Even though Chuck might think himself "too vital to this world" to commit suicide, isn't he at risk given the drug regimen he is on? Doesn't every drug commercial have a long set of caveats..."may cause increased thoughts of suicide, etc..."? So that may be  what pushed him, after destroying the house.

He had canceled the appointment with Dr Cruz cause he knew he had "relapsed" and didn't want to face her and admit it. Now he would have to admit to any one who saw his house that he is officially CRAZY. Combined with the drug side effects, the Lantern was his next move.

[Captanne]

On 6/23/2017 at 2:19 PM, Jextella said:

It's been said Jimmy and Howard enabled Chuck - rather than helped him (kinda like the doctor said to Jimmy!).

They absolutely thoroughly enabled Chuck.  I understood Jimmy doing it -- he was devoted to Chuck until the last few episodes.  I couldn't figure out Howard.  He was very frustrating for me.  But when he finally broke and fired Chuck, it was a great relief for this viewer.  I'm sorry it killed Chuck but Howard did the right thing.  He couldn't have known what would end up happening.

 

PS:  Something has really been bothering me.  I totally believe Chuck is dead and committed suicide.  (Truth be told, good riddance after bad rubbish, imo.)  But, with that question about rope around his chest, I went back to the video.  I put the youtube clip on the previous page here.  I don't see a rope at all.  But what I ~do~ see, I wonder if anyone else does?  The camera spends a lingering second on an open safe.  And, it does bug me that (as incoherent as he looks, to be fair) he kicks the table over and over.  He could just as easily lit a match and be done with it.  TO BE CLEAR, for me he's dead and gone.  But these two little things nag at me.

 

ETA:  Someone smarter than I am said it's a washing machine. Thanks!  In the dark scene I really thought it was a safe. 

Edited June 25, 2017 by Captanne

[Tikichick]

1 hour ago, Lurky McLurkerson said:

My working conspiracy theory is that, if Chuck was tied to the chair, it's a final attempt to sabotage Jimmy -- who would want to harm Chuck but his ne'er-do-well little brother with a prior plea for an assault against him?  And the fire would leave only bits of the rope so it wouldn't be obviously it was self-tied.  (Complete speculation, and I'm not even sure that I think he was tied to the chair, but I think Chuck's deteriorate to the point of martyring himself to take Jimmy down.)

I've wondered the same, or even if that wasn't Chuck's intention, will it be at all a momentary theory of the arson investigators that someone did this to Chuck?

We know Jimmy is not charged or convicted with doing anything to Chuck, thank goodness.  Although I do think Chuck's death in such a pitiable state and shocking way will be so devastating Jimmy will never truly recover from it.  Chuck's last words to him will haunt him and hurt evermore.  IMO the most distasteful permutations of Saul will partly emerge because Jimmy will assume the mantle Chuck held out to him as his rightful state in life, a hairshirt if you will.  No doubt he accepts his fate as Gene as more of the same.

[Jextella]

3 minutes ago, Captanne said:

They absolutely thoroughly enabled Chuck.  I understood Jimmy doing it -- he was devoted to Chuck until the last few episodes.  I couldn't figure out Howard.  He was very frustrating for me.  But when he finally broke and fired Chuck, it was a great relief for this viewer.  I'm sorry it killed Chuck but Howard did the right thing.  He couldn't have known what would end up happening.

 

PS:  Something has really been bothering me.  I totally believe Chuck is dead and committed suicide.  (Truth be told, good riddance after bad rubbish, imo.)  But, with that question about rope around his chest, I went back to the video.  I put the youtube clip on the previous page here.  I don't see a rope at all.  But what I ~do~ see, I wonder if anyone else does?  The camera spends a lingering second on an open safe.  And, it does bug me that (as incoherent as he looks, to be fair) he kicks the table over and over.  He could just as easily lit a match and be done with it.  TO BE CLEAR, for me he's dead and gone.  But these two little things nag at me.

OMG.  Now I'm going to have to rewatch.  For now, I was thinking about the kicking and why he didn't just do one switch kick.  I think it it like the metronome he used at the piano.  Everything is steady and timed in Chuck's world.  Even the dismantling of the house in search of the power source was one-spot-at-a-time.  The kicking was the same.  In time to the metronome.

The other possibility, although unlikely given the scope of the blaze....by using small kicks it could give the appearance that the lantern was knocked over - not pushed over, i.e. accident vs. suicide.  

[Bryce Lynch]

2 hours ago, rue721 said:

Until his mother died, his wife left him, Jimmy passed the bar (and quit HHM to work the public defender overflow)...All those events seem to have happened within a year or two of each other, and they were all catastrophes (in Chuck's perspective) that were out of Chuck's control. Chuck got thrown for a loop and couldn't cope, apparently.

Yes, Chuck was correct. But he didn't have to insist that everyone know that. He could have just tried to direct the conversation away from who was to blame, or even taken on the blame himself. But since when does Chuck have any social grace, so...

Like with most things, the problem wasn't the crime, it was the cover up. Making a transposition error on important documents is bad. Refusing to be the boss and take responsibility for it, and right in front of the judge and client no less, is even worse, though. That's what really did him in. Plus, he made it into a battle of wills with Paige, and Paige was really not having that.

By the way, do you remember Saul Goodman's intro in Breaking Bad? He had Badger confused with someone who'd been accused of public masturbation, supposedly also because of a "transposition error." Just funny how everything gets blamed on a "transposition error" with Jimmy! Anyway.

I think it would have been worse for Chuck, not Jimmy. Even if Chuck figured that Jimmy would forgive him (which I think he would have anyway), it would have changed how the rest of the firm saw him, too. It's one thing if the petty, silver-spoon douchebag partner, Howard, blocks Jimmy from advancement. But Jimmy's own brother? That's a different story. At best, Chuck wouldn't look very supportive or magnanimous.

I agree that Chuck handled that badly, but my point is, from his perspective, it was almost like Paige was a crazy person saying something that was obviously untrue, like the legal pad was black, when it was really yellow.  Because of his "One after Magna Carta" memory, it was genuinely inconceivable to him that the address really could have been 1261, and that contributed to his rudeness.  Jimmy set him up even better than he realized. :)

I get what you are saying, but Chuck wasn't covering up anything, he was sabotaged.  I think being falsely accused of something and having nobody believe you has to be one of the most maddening things that can happen to people.  How one behaves under those circumstances doesn't really say much about whether or not the person is a control freak.

Good catch on the "transpositional error" from BB!  1261 vs 1216 is a lot closer than "Trafficking methamphetamine" and "public masturbation".  LOL

[JudyObscure]

If Chuck was unable to walk and the firm had to install a chair lift for him would it be because he was a control freak or because that was the only way he could go to HHM and work?  Chuck believed the lights caused him intense pain and so the only way he could attend meetings was to have the lights turned off. I don't think that was Chuck controlling things, but rather the firm accommodating his disability.

As for people telling Chuck his illness was psychosomatic?  When has that ever worked?  If your hand is burning with pain, whether from setting it on the hot grill or from setting it on a battery, someone telling you it's all in your head probably wont change anything. 

We have a relative with schizophrenia.  It took us ten years to get help for her because she was convinced doctors just wanted to control her brain,( it was bad enough that the CIA was already following her.)  See, that's the problem with anyone who is mentally ill, the part that makes good decisions about things like making and keeping doctor appointments is the part that is sick.

I agree that Chuck was a perfectionist, but not particularly controlling.   He wasn't trying to control Rebecca's response to Jimmy, he was apologizing in advance for inflicting his crude brother on her.  All those people bringing him groceries and newspapers were either paid by him or, in Jimmy's case, a family member volunteering.  My neighbor has a steady stream of health aides, gardeners,  and cleaners coming to his house because he can't walk, but he's not a control freak.  Just because people gather around to help someone with a disability, doesn't make that person a control freak.  If Jimmy had ended up having to cut up Kim's meat for her would that make her a control freak?

[Bryce Lynch]

1 hour ago, Lurky McLurkerson said:

My working conspiracy theory is that, if Chuck was tied to the chair, it's a final attempt to sabotage Jimmy -- who would want to harm Chuck but his ne'er-do-well little brother with a prior plea for an assault against him?  And the fire would leave only bits of the rope so it wouldn't be obviously it was self-tied.  (Complete speculation, and I'm not even sure that I think he was tied to the chair, but I think Chuck's deteriorate to the point of martyring himself to take Jimmy down.)

I presented the theory (as a wild conspiracy theory) that Chuck may have been trying to frame Jimmy, but I didn't notice the rope.  Now that you mention the rope, it seems a bit less crazy.

Remember, Jimmy did threaten to burn the house down in front of Howard and the private investigator.  

[Tikichick]

1 minute ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I agree that Chuck handled that badly, but my point is, from his perspective, it was almost like Paige was a crazy person saying something that was obviously untrue, like the legal pad was black, when it was really yellow.  Because of his "One after Magna Carta" memory, it was genuinely inconceivable to him that the address really could have been 1261, and that contributed to his rudeness.  Jimmy set him up even better than he realized. :)

I get what you are saying, but Chuck wasn't covering up anything, he was sabotaged.  I think being falsely accused of something and having nobody believe you has to be one of the most maddening things that can happen to people.  How one behaves under those circumstances doesn't really say much about whether or not the person is a control freak.

Good catch on the "transpositional error" from BB!  1261 vs 1216 is a lot closer than "Trafficking methamphetamine" and "public masturbation".  LOL

The control freak piece of it isn't that Chuck knew he could not have messed that up and something had happened.  The control freak could not set aside their agenda for the immediate moment and subjugate it to the job at hand, leaving the uncovering of the chicanery for the appropriate time.  No, the control freak sets the agenda and it must be ceded to, unquestionably. 

3 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

If Chuck was unable to walk and the firm had to install a chair lift for him would it be because he was a control freak or because that was the only way he could go to HHM and work?  Chuck believed the lights caused him intense pain and so the only way he could attend meetings was to have the lights turned off. I don't think that was Chuck controlling things, but rather the firm accommodating his disability.

As for people telling Chuck his illness was psychosomatic?  When has that ever worked?  If your hand is burning with pain, whether from setting it on the hot grill or from setting it on a battery, someone telling you it's all in your head probably wont change anything. 

We have a relative with schizophrenia.  It took us ten years to get help for her because she was convinced doctors just wanted to control her brain,( it was bad enough that the CIA was already following her.)  See, that's the problem with anyone who is mentally ill, the part that makes good decisions about things like making and keeping doctor appointments is the part that is sick.

I agree that Chuck was a perfectionist, but not particularly controlling.   He wasn't trying to control Rebecca's response to Jimmy, he was apologizing in advance for inflicting his crude brother on her.  All those people bringing him groceries and newspapers were either paid by him or, in Jimmy's case, a family member volunteering.  My neighbor has a steady stream of health aides, gardeners,  and cleaners coming to his house because he can't walk, but he's not a control freak.  Just because people gather around to help someone with a disability, doesn't make that person a control freak.  If Jimmy had ended up having to cut up Kim's meat for her would that make her a control freak?

Ernesto seemed awfully distressed when the market was out of Chuck's preferred variety of apples.

Things between the brothers have gone into extreme toxicity, yet when Jimmy comes to the house to check on Chuck he cannot shake the "rules" for entering; keys in mailbox, be sure to touch the metal post before entering to make sure you're not carrying any electric charge on your person.   

[Bryce Lynch]

1 minute ago, Tikichick said:

The control freak piece of it isn't that Chuck knew he could not have messed that up and something had happened.  The control freak could not set aside their agenda for the immediate moment and subjugate it to the job at hand, leaving the uncovering of the chicanery for the appropriate time.  No, the control freak sets the agenda and it must be ceded to, unquestionably. 

Again, I disagree that he was being a control freak in that instance.  He knew with 100% certainty, as if the original document was right in front of his face, that the address on the documents he used was 1216 ("One after Magna Carta")  Then he has all these "idiots" (as he reasonably would have viewed them) telling him it's 1261.  That created a level of frustration that caused him to be a little rude to Paige.  Is Kim a "control freak" for slamming the binder in front of Paige when she doubted Kim about the ratios?  No, she was exhausted and frustrated, just like Chuck.  Also, keep in mind that going to the hearing with all the electricity and metal detectors was very emotionally and to him "physically" taxing on Chuck, so he was already on edge, just like Kim was from lack of sleep.  

[JudyObscure]

20 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Good catch on the "transpositional error" from BB!  1261 vs 1216 is a lot closer than "Trafficking methamphetamine" and "public masturbation".  LOL

Thanks for the memory.  I'll never forget Saul's introduction on BB, starting with his mix-up of clients and finishing with the sound of him yelling in the corridor, "Now, where's my masturbator?"  Somewhere in there was his TV ad.  I fell in love.

[Tikichick]

2 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

Thanks for the memory.  I'll never forget Saul's introduction on BB, starting with his mix-up of clients and finishing with the sound of him yelling in the corridor, "Now, where's my masturbator?"  Somewhere in there was his TV ad.  I fell in love.

I'm finding supreme irony that the spinoff featuring a character I had no use for on BB just may be my favorite TV series of all time -- and I have fallen in love with James McGill, Esq. along the way.

[Bryce Lynch]

5 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

Thanks for the memory.  I'll never forget Saul's introduction on BB, starting with his mix-up of clients and finishing with the sound of him yelling in the corridor, "Now, where's my masturbator?"  Somewhere in there was his TV ad.  I fell in love.

I wonder if  "his masturbator" was "Major" Fudge Talbott?  He had defended our favorite "war hero" on public masturbation charges, and I think people with those sorts of issues tend be be repeat offenders.    "Badger/Fudge", I could see Francesca getting them mixed up. :)

Edited June 23, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[LoneHaranguer]

42 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Good catch on the "transpositional error" from BB!  1261 vs 1216 is a lot closer than "Trafficking methamphetamine" and "public masturbation".  LOL

The difference between 1216 and 1261 could put you into a residential zone or across a town line, definitely on the other side of the street (with different traffic issues), so it's not trivial, even if it's not on the same level as confusing the code numbers for two very different crimes.

[smorbie]

3 hours ago, rue721 said:

I thought he had tied himself to the chair, so that he'd have to go through with it? I thought that was why he was kicking the lantern to knock it over, too (instead of just throwing it down).

If he did tie himself to the chair, the firefighters might be able to tell that and would know it was a suicide (or suicide attempt).

I don't think he was tied to the chair.  I'm not sure how someone would tie himself to a chair all by himself.  It's not something I ever contemplated doing, but I just don't know how that would work.  I think people are just seeing the lines of the space blanket.

[Eulipian 5k]

4 minutes ago, smorbie said:

I don't think he was tied to the chair.  I'm not sure how someone would tie himself to a chair all by himself.  It's not something I ever contemplated doing, but I just don't know how that would work.  I think people are just seeing the lines of the space blanket.

HA HA. This is the big hole in the theory. On most cop show,s seeing the victim tied to a chair is when the cop turns to the partner and says "I guess we can rule out suicide". Chuck  may be depressed, drugged, and delusional, but he's no Houdini.

[smorbie]

Well, there's our example.  Houdini couldn't get into the strait jacket by himself.  He needed help.

[Lurky McLurkerson]

37 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

If Chuck was unable to walk and the firm had to install a chair lift for him would it be because he was a control freak or because that was the only way he could go to HHM and work?  Chuck believed the lights caused him intense pain and so the only way he could attend meetings was to have the lights turned off. I don't think that was Chuck controlling things, but rather the firm accommodating his disability.

As for people telling Chuck his illness was psychosomatic?  When has that ever worked?  If your hand is burning with pain, whether from setting it on the hot grill or from setting it on a battery, someone telling you it's all in your head probably wont change anything. 

HHM would not have to turn off their lights, cell phones, etc. to accommodate Chuck's disability in the office.  The ADA only requires reasonable accommodation that allows the employee to do their job.  A business, particularly a law firm, can't function with the lights out and no one carrying their mobile communication devices.  Even in the age of BCS, the vast majority of legal research had moved to online rather than books, so computers are a must for research and writing.  Given how many of the mission-critical functions of the firm conflict directly with the accommodations Chuck would need, I can't see how they would be inclined nor required to provide them.  When someone's accommodation impacts the ability of others to do their work -- and they believe that accommodating themselves is more important than the ordinary business function of the organization -- that's a problem.  Even Chuck's home deliveries of client files made me twitchy as it's a risk to client confidentiality and putting confidential/proprietary materials into the hands of someone who may not have been mentally well enough to ensure their safekeeping.

I don't really care if Chuck's illness is psychosomatic or mental.  He needs treatment to function in normal society.  There is a difference between telling someone it's all in their head and telling them they need mental health treatment to return to normal functioning. I get that someone having mental heath issues might be less receptive to hearing that, if their thinking is impaired, but that's just another argument that he's not mentally competent enough to be an active attorney, much less a managing partner.

[Tikichick]

14 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

HA HA. This is the big hole in the theory. On most cop show,s seeing the victim tied to a chair is when the cop turns to the partner and says "I guess we can rule out suicide". Chuck  may be depressed, drugged, and delusional, but he's no Houdini.

That's what I cannot get past.  I didn't even notice it watching the episode and didn't believe my husband when he said something.  We rewound again and again on the scene and I do see that it appears there is a band visible very briefly across Chuck's chest and it appears as if his upper torso is held back and his arms are tethered to his torso from shoulder to elbow.  

As I said when I mentioned it, I cannot explain how it's possible, but I have to concede that's how it appears watching Chuck as he is sitting there, beginning to kick the table.    

[Eulipian 5k]

After the flames rose, just before the fade out, I kept turning up the volume to see if I could hear Chuck say "Drat!".

[Captanne]

Please look at the video.  There is no rope.  You can see his fingers.  But no rope.

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Captanne

[ShadowFacts]

You can tie yourself into a chair leaving one arm out until the tie is complete, then slip the free arm in but of course that would be so loose as to be able to get back out again, so it makes no sense.  The tied in a chair thing never occurred to me until I read it here.  Odd and horrible as it was to kick a lantern over, I took it to be suicide of a very sick person.  He went from talking to Jimmy and the doctor's office quite calmly and lucidly, and in a matter of hours had descended into being able to commit a horrific act.  To me, that is a psychotic break.  Those can be brought on by extreme stress.  He looked psychotic, like something out of Stephen King, not like he was trying to set up any complicated method, or way to fool the investigators.  I would not want to see the show become a whodunit mystery type thing, and I don't think it will.  I think the show is more about how people become who they are, and how Chuck's demise will push Howard, Kim and most of all Jimmy in the directions they go toward whatever end game the writers come up with. 

[ShadowFacts]

1 hour ago, Lurky McLurkerson said:

HHM would not have to turn off their lights, cell phones, etc. to accommodate Chuck's disability in the office.  The ADA only requires reasonable accommodation that allows the employee to do their job.  A business, particularly a law firm, can't function with the lights out and no one carrying their mobile communication devices.  Even in the age of BCS, the vast majority of legal research had moved to online rather than books, so computers are a must for research and writing.  Given how many of the mission-critical functions of the firm conflict directly with the accommodations Chuck would need, I can't see how they would be inclined nor required to provide them.  When someone's accommodation impacts the ability of others to do their work -- and they believe that accommodating themselves is more important than the ordinary business function of the organization -- that's a problem.  Even Chuck's home deliveries of client files made me twitchy as it's a risk to client confidentiality and putting confidential/proprietary materials into the hands of someone who may not have been mentally well enough to ensure their safekeeping.

I don't really care if Chuck's illness is psychosomatic or mental.  He needs treatment to function in normal society.  There is a difference between telling someone it's all in their head and telling them they need mental health treatment to return to normal functioning. I get that someone having mental heath issues might be less receptive to hearing that, if their thinking is impaired, but that's just another argument that he's not mentally competent enough to be an active attorney, much less a managing partner.

You're right.  HHM did the accommodations voluntarily.  The other people like the bar examiners and the DA also voluntarily deferred to him.  Howard didn't want to rock the boat too much probably for mixed reasons -- he held Chuck in high regard for all of the things he had done, and also didn't want to have to end the partnership and pay him what his share was valued at.  There was a middle ground that Howard never went to.  He could have made it clear that until he was well, Chuck could not take files out of the office and work at home.  Chuck could have gone on inactive status with the bar, still be a member but not have to have malpractice insurance, retain his partnership interest, but just do no work until he underwent treatment and was able to tolerate electricity and modern office equipment.  So instead of everyone putting their devices in the rubbermaid containers and ferrying things to him, they would carry on as usual and he would have to work with it or not.  What they were doing was not reasonable, as you have outlined above.  Of course Chuck would have fought it but I think HHM would have prevailed in any lawsuit.  Howard apparently didn't want to do anything messy, but then things came to a critical point. 

[Gobi]

Regarding Chuck's will. If he didn't have one, then Jimmy is going to inherit everything, presuming  the intestate laws of New Mexico are the same as those of my state.

[PeterPirate]

All jokes aside, I won't entertain the idea that Chuck is not dead. I think that cheapens the impact of having Chuck commit suicide. I don't know of another TV show wherein a major character has done that, especially when the actions of the show's main  protagonist and another main character played essential roles in the events leading to the suicide. As far as I'm concerned this show is in uncharted waters.

Note:  I consider Kim, Chuck and Mike to be the top three major characters ,after Jimmy of course. Nacho and Howard are one step below them.    

Edited June 23, 2017 by PeterPirate

[Jextella]

2 hours ago, Captanne said:

Please look at the video.  There is no rope.  You can see his fingers.  But no rope.

 

 

I didn't see a safe either.  I think that's an overturned washing machine with the door flung open.

[Clanstarling]

3 hours ago, Captanne said:

Please look at the video.  There is no rope.  You can see his fingers.  But no rope.

 

It seems to me that what looks like rope is clearly the reflection of the lamp on the folds of the space blanket (or whatever it is called). My take is that he's exhausted an only has enough physical, and emotional, energy to kick at the table. I believe he's dead. To me it was unequivocal.

They've led Chuck down a path where he has been brought down low. He has no one to turn to, no job to get back to. Nothing but a huge empty house that is a source of pain. He has been betrayed by his body (or mind), his family and friends. He's lost the respect of his closest colleague and his reputation has taken a severe blow - which is probably more devastating than the loss of the personal relationships. He has no future left to build. Suicide seems like the logical next step for a man who is already mentally disturbed.

2 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

I won't entertain the idea that Chuck is not dead. I think that cheapens the impact of having Chuck commit suicide. I don't know of another TV show wherein a major character has done that, especially when the actions of the show's main  protagonist and another main character played essential roles in the events leading to the suicide.

Exactly. And while I dislike Chuck, it is a sad ending. 

[ByTor]

Prediction...Kim calling her meds "the good stuff" wasn't a throw-away line.  She is going to become addicted, which in turn is going to lead her to a dealer who has some kind of connection to Gus.  Kim is going to get into some kind of trouble, Jimmy is going to defend her as "Saul", which will be the beginning of Saul Goodman, "criminal" lawyer.

[HeyNow]

Well, if there was a rope and there was an open safe, there's a possibility someone entered the house after his fit and we saw him trying to........eh, I dunno exactly what.

[smorbie]

4 hours ago, Captanne said:

Please look at the video.  There is no rope.  You can see his fingers.  But no rope.

 

I watched it twice, and I watched the whole show the other day.  I don't see a rope.  

I took special notice of the condition of his house.  He must have spent hours and hours destroying it.  It is emblematic of the damage he had done to his life.  IMO, we are watching the suicide of a very sad, disturbed man who had nothing left.

And this is going to kill Jimmy.

Edited June 24, 2017 by smorbie