S04.E04: Talk

[Bryce Lynch]

9 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

That bit about The Verdict is a fantastic catch.  I would give you ten hearts if I could. 

And it makes perfect sense.  Everyone in the justice system/legal profession is going to know about the death of Chuck McGill, and about the accusations he made about his brother, and how that brother was defended by Kim Wexler.  And I imagine that a lot of people would presume that there was at least a reasonable possibility that Kim aided and abetted a felony.  

After all, how else would a judge in a criminal court immediately recognize a corporate attorney?  

I don't the the judge has any suspicions about Kim.  He didn't even know she had left HHM and started her own firm, unless he was being coy about that.   I think the point of giving her the plot from "The Verdict" was to tell her hopes of getting a case that will restore her soul and love for the law are unrealistic and only found in Hollywood movies.  The document issue in "The Verdict" was not what the movie or the case was about.   

Paige and Kevin from Mesa Verde read the transcripts and concluded Chuck was nuts.   Jimmy was suspended for the break in, assault and destroying the cassette tape, not the document alteration.  If the ethics board thought for a minute that Jimmy actually altered the documents they would have disbarred him permanently.   Jimmy and Kim successfully sold the story that Jimmy was just trying to make Crazy Chuck feel better with his "confession".  

Kim also handled criminal cases at HHM, e.g. Team Kettleman.  

[shapeshifter]

7 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I also took it that he briefly considered having Ira steal Hummel's from Mrs. Strauss and perhaps some of his old Sandpiper clients.  I rewatched it last night, and his hesitation was very, brief.  That made me think that the thought popped into his mind, but he didn't seriously consider it.  

—except then why bring back the Hummels to the show at all? I hadn't considered Jimmy revisiting the elders with Hummels until reading it here, but now I expect it to happen. Jimmy is not really capable of ignoring such an opportunity.

7 hours ago, AEMom said:

I think that it was just to up the tension of the scene.

We realize that he's left the glove on the shelf.  We think "Damn!  Will he realize it?"  Then later on we see that he does realize it.  Everyone knows now that he can't leave without the glove so that makes an extra problem that he has to solve before he can get out.

I missed the glove bit entirely, but now I'm thinking it will later come back to haunt Ira and Jimmy—perhaps only because Jimmy does pull another Hummel caper, but when the victim is someone who values her tchotchkes, she calls in the cops.

Edited August 30, 2018 by shapeshifter

[MisterBluxom]

I just read a mini-biography of Vince Gilligan who is the main Executive Producer of shows like Better Call Saul and Breaking Bad and The X-Files.

To make a very long story very short, he expresses his attitude towards creating TV shows as "Less is More". I'm going to post a link to that interview because I found it to be really excellent and also because ... it goes a long way towards explaining several of the issues discussed in this thread such as, "What is going on with that glove that Jimmy's new partner almost left in the case when they stole the Hummer" and "What is going on with Jimmy working at that cell phone store where no one comes into the store for any reason?

Here is the link:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0319213/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

I sincerely hope you will enjoy it as much as I did.

Edited August 30, 2018 by MissBluxom

[atlantaloves]

Wow, just read that, thank you. He is the MAN. 

[SunnyBeBe]

15 hours ago, MissBluxom said:

I just read a mini-biography of Vince Gilligan who is the main Executive Producer of shows like Better Call Saul and Breaking Bad and The X-Files.

To make a very long story very short, he expresses his attitude towards creating TV shows as "Less is More". I'm going to post a link to that interview because I found it to be really excellent and also because ... it goes a long way towards explaining several of the issues discussed in this thread such as, "What is going on with that glove that Jimmy's new partner almost left in the case when they stole the Hummer" and "What is going on with Jimmy working at that cell phone store where no one comes into the store for any reason?

Here is the link:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0319213/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

I sincerely hope you will enjoy it as much as I did.

 

I loved that piece about Gilligan.  MANY writers in the industry could learn a lot by reading it.  Many of them make the mistakes that he talks about.  You'd think by now, they'd use him as an example for quality. 

Edited August 31, 2018 by SunnyBeBe

[Clanstarling]

17 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

—except then why bring back the Hummels to the show at all? I hadn't considered Jimmy revisiting the elders with Hummels until reading it here, but now I expect it to happen. Jimmy is not really capable of ignoring such an opportunity.

I missed the glove bit entirely, but now I'm thinking it will later come back to haunt Ira and Jimmy—perhaps only because Jimmy does pull another Hummel caper, but when the victim is someone who values her tchotchkes, she calls in the cops.

I can see the theory that Jimmy's fall will include stealing Hummels from his old client, but I don't know that I believe that.

I prefer to think that the Hummels are mostly symbolic. Jimmy's introduction to Hummels marked the beginning of what was, briefly, a successful rise in his career as a lawyer. Whereas this Hummel, and him masterminding the theft - marks the deliberate downward turn on his road to becoming Saul.

[PeterPirate]

Another way to look at the Hummel thing is that it shows how Jimmy distinguishes between potential victims.  It was OK to steal from Neff because he was not smart enough to know the value of his property, and to steal from his parents because they were not smart enough to protect themselves from scam artists.  But it would not be OK to steal Hummels from his own clients, nor was it acceptable to ruin Irene's reputation.  

This leads me to wonder if, back in Cicero, Jimmy chose the victims of his slipping scam with any discernment about their character, or if he simply looked at the geometry of their property.  

Edited August 31, 2018 by PeterPirate

[ShadowFacts]

26 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

I can see the theory that Jimmy's fall will include stealing Hummels from his old client, but I don't know that I believe that.

I prefer to think that the Hummels are mostly symbolic. Jimmy's introduction to Hummels marked the beginning of what was, briefly, a successful rise in his career as a lawyer. Whereas this Hummel, and him masterminding the theft - marks the deliberate downward turn on his road to becoming Saul.

I agree, it does mark his turn down the road of real criminality, not that he hasn't been there before, he's done plenty of petty crime, and document alteration, directing Mike to breaking and entering, etc.  But he showed heart towards the elders, he did Irene wrong but then corrected it.  If he were to participate in thieving against them, that would be an indication of a really black heart/lost soul/cynicism.  I hope he sticks with his cellphone brainstorm and doesn't backtrack on his decision to not steal more Hummels. 

[Tighthead]

55 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

I can see the theory that Jimmy's fall will include stealing Hummels from his old client, but I don't know that I believe that.

I prefer to think that the Hummels are mostly symbolic. Jimmy's introduction to Hummels marked the beginning of what was, briefly, a successful rise in his career as a lawyer. Whereas this Hummel, and him masterminding the theft - marks the deliberate downward turn on his road to becoming Saul.

Even Saul had an odd loyalty to his despicable clients. I don’t see Jimmy turning on a sweet old lady. 

[Bryce Lynch]

9 minutes ago, Tighthead said:

Even Saul had an odd loyalty to his despicable clients. I don’t see Jimmy turning on a sweet old lady. 

I'm not so sure about how loyal Saul was.  He glibly suggested that he could arrange for Badger to get killed in the chow line, if Walt and Jesse didn't want to pay the $80,000 to get Jimmy In and Out, to pretend to be Heisenberg and go to prison.  Towards the end of the series he  also floated the idea of Walt killing Jesse, though by that point, it probably made sense.  

[Clanstarling]

2 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

This leads me to wonder if, back in Cicero, Jimmy chose the victims of his slipping scam with any discernment about their character, or if he simply looked at the geometry of their property.  

My sense was that Jimmy's marks were greedy opportunists wanting to take advantage of Jimmy's scam character. Those kinds of cons don't bother me at all - the marks have only their greed to blame.

[PeterPirate]

1 hour ago, Clanstarling said:

My sense was that Jimmy's marks were greedy opportunists wanting to take advantage of Jimmy's scam character. Those kinds of cons don't bother me at all - the marks have only their greed to blame.

I agree with this for the most part.  Problem is, Jimmy also scammed seemingly honest people by slipping on their property and then threatening to sue them.  If he was Scamming Jimmy instead of Slipping Jimmy I would enjoy this show a lot more.  

[Clanstarling]

4 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

I agree with this for the most part.  Problem is, Jimmy also scammed seemingly honest people by slipping on their property and then threatening to sue them.  If he was Scamming Jimmy instead of Slipping Jimmy I would enjoy this show a lot more.  

Ah, I'd forgotten the slipping part (except for the revenge tactic that backfired and brought Tuco and Nacho into his life).

[Blintzie]

By the way, Cradock Marine Bank is also the bank in The X-Files episode “Monday” which was written by Vince Gilligan! 

[adambcs]

6 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Another way to look at the Hummel thing is that it shows how Jimmy distinguishes between potential victims.  It was OK to steal from Neff because he was not smart enough to know the value of his property, and to steal from his parents because they were not smart enough to protect themselves from scam artists.  But it would not be OK to steal Hummels from his own clients, nor was it acceptable to ruin Irene's reputation.  

This leads me to wonder if, back in Cicero, Jimmy chose the victims of his slipping scam with any discernment about their character, or if he simply looked at the geometry of their property.  

Good points. It is interesting to compare Jimmy's "line" with Mike's. Jimmy seems to think it is okay to steal the Hummel because the owner doesn't even know what he possesses. Mike, on the other hand, turns down the opportunity (seemingly) because the owner never wronged Jimmy or did anything to justify the crime. They draw the line at different points.

[SunnyBeBe]

Actually, the store owner was just going to throw the Hummel away, so, it would have been discarded property.  So, Jimmy just got to it before it got to the discarded part. lol 

[Ottis]

On 8/28/2018 at 5:32 AM, JudyObscure said:

This is the first episode of BCS that I thought veered into the unrealistic.

Kim disobeying a direct order from a judge.  Isn't that a really bad thing in lawyer-land, contempt of court or something?

Mike calling out all the honest people in the grief group. We know Mike can't get over the death of Matty and his own part in it, but how often does Mike think about his wife these days?  Stacey might actually be moving on a little better if Mike wasn't there silently guilting her about moving on.

The gun fight.  Please.  With all those armed thugs, and all that junk to hide behind, I can not believe one of those guys didn't get the drop on one of the Salamancas.  The satchels o' guns did make me laugh, though.

I'm probably just mad because I thought this was going to be a Kim episode and her time on screen was tiny compared to the drug world. 

Also, the sound of people eating makes me angry and causes me to hate the eater, (this is not an uncommon reaction*) so if that's not what we're supposed to do then that part of the directing is bad.

*Misophonia, a disorder which means sufferers have a hatred of sounds such as eating, chewing, loud breathing or even repeated pen-clicking, was first named as a condition in 2001"

I think Kim going back to the courtroom, defying the judge, was the point. She seems to be working up to either “I’ve had enough of this good dooby lawyer shit” or to be Jimmy’s partner in crime. Or both. 

I do think the whole scene with Mike in group was to emphasize his feeling guilty. And listening to all the lies and lame crap around him, I can see how Mike would blow, eventually. I had a debate with a friend about whether Mike was a Mary Sue, demonstrating behaviors that viewers would admire and substitute themselves into his role. I didn’t think so, Mike is too flawed. And in this group session, we saw one of his flaws. 

I love the legend of The Cousins. They can do anything.

And ITA about the annoying eating sounds. I almost fast forwarded the scenes because of that. Ugh!

[SunnyBeBe]

I really don't understand Kim's behavior at all.  I look forward to seeing what is really going on with her.   I didn't watch much last season, so, I'm not really sure what kind of client/attorney relationship that she has with real estate investors.  But, with all the work they talked about and assuming that she is on retainer and billing by the hour, why would she not be working away, billing, and making a good income?   Even with her office in her home, she would still have ample overhead, including, Bar dues, professional liability insurance, health insurance, paralegal salary, phone, supplies, professional organization membership dues, continuing legal educations classes (mandatory), etc.  There are many expenses, plus, she has her personal expenses to cover, and taxes to pay.  So, I don't get where she's coming from. 

[ShadowFacts]

1 hour ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I really don't understand Kim's behavior at all.  I look forward to seeing what is really going on with her.   I didn't watch much last season, so, I'm not really sure what kind of client/attorney relationship that she has with real estate investors.  But, with all the work they talked about and assuming that she is on retainer and billing by the hour, why would she not be working away, billing, and making a good income?   Even with her office in her home, she would still have ample overhead, including, Bar dues, professional liability insurance, health insurance, paralegal salary, phone, supplies, professional organization membership dues, continuing legal educations classes (mandatory), etc.  There are many expenses, plus, she has her personal expenses to cover, and taxes to pay.  So, I don't get where she's coming from. 

Mesa Verde is a bank that she's doing regulatory work for.  You may not have seen last season that she was burning the candle at both ends, sleeping at her office, showering and changing at a gym instead of going home, really busting her butt for MV and I think another oilman-type client.  Her serious car accident because she nodded off at the wheel, and then Chuck's death, have been a kind of one-two punch that seems to have her re-evaluating if she wants to continue that kind of work. 

[MisterBluxom]

11 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Another way to look at the Hummel thing is that it shows how Jimmy distinguishes between potential victims.  It was OK to steal from Neff because he was not smart enough to know the value of his property, and to steal from his parents because they were not smart enough to protect themselves from scam artists.  But it would not be OK to steal Hummels from his own clients, nor was it acceptable to ruin Irene's reputation.  

This leads me to wonder if, back in Cicero, Jimmy chose the victims of his slipping scam with any discernment about their character, or if he simply looked at the geometry of their property.  

 

 

I was very happy when Jimmy decided to slip and fall in that store with the two brothers who screwed him around by telling him they would buy some airtime and then just laughed in his face saying they could use the first commercial and do the rest for themselves. Jimmy decided to get the last laugh and I was real happy to see him display the brains and guts to pull that off. I loved the way the expressions on the brothers' faces changed when Jimmy took that big fall. I hope he made them pay through their nose(s).

2 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I really don't understand Kim's behavior at all.  I look forward to seeing what is really going on with her.   I didn't watch much last season, so, I'm not really sure what kind of client/attorney relationship that she has with real estate investors.  But, with all the work they talked about and assuming that she is on retainer and billing by the hour, why would she not be working away, billing, and making a good income?   Even with her office in her home, she would still have ample overhead, including, Bar dues, professional liability insurance, health insurance, paralegal salary, phone, supplies, professional organization membership dues, continuing legal educations classes (mandatory), etc.  There are many expenses, plus, she has her personal expenses to cover, and taxes to pay.  So, I don't get where she's coming from. 

I expect a big part of her behavior stems from her desire to have a long term love relationship (maybe even marriage) with Jimmy where they could both work on causes that mattered to her. She has to see however that Jimmy is just one wild stallion who is near impossible to tame. Even worse, Jimmy seems destined to choose a path that will lead to tragedy for him as well as any spouse he may have. I think Kim has become disheartened by the realization that things are just not going to work out the way she wants with Jimmy.

I'm just guessing however. The truth may well be something different. Especially since we are not talking about real life and "the truth" is whatever some writer sitting at a typewriter decides it is.

Edited September 1, 2018 by MissBluxom

[PeterPirate]

2 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I really don't understand Kim's behavior at all.  I look forward to seeing what is really going on with her.   I didn't watch much last season, so, I'm not really sure what kind of client/attorney relationship that she has with real estate investors.  But, with all the work they talked about and assuming that she is on retainer and billing by the hour, why would she not be working away, billing, and making a good income?   Even with her office in her home, she would still have ample overhead, including, Bar dues, professional liability insurance, health insurance, paralegal salary, phone, supplies, professional organization membership dues, continuing legal educations classes (mandatory), etc.  There are many expenses, plus, she has her personal expenses to cover, and taxes to pay.  So, I don't get where she's coming from. 

 

1 hour ago, ShadowFacts said:

Mesa Verde is a bank that she's doing regulatory work for.  You may not have seen last season that she was burning the candle at both ends, sleeping at her office, showering and changing at a gym instead of going home, really busting her butt for MV and I think another oilman-type client.  Her serious car accident because she nodded off at the wheel, and then Chuck's death, have been a kind of one-two punch that seems to have her re-evaluating if she wants to continue that kind of work. 

Kim, I think, is also wrestling with her involvement in getting Jimmy off regarding the destruction of the tape, the fact that it implicated Jimmy in a felony, and her "knowledge" that Jimmy doctored the documents so that she would get the Mesa Verde case.  She's Lady Macbeth.  

I find Kim fascinating.  On the surface, she's overworked and recovering from a car wreck.  But underneath there's a riptide of other factors that are washing her out to sea.    

Mike, too, is interesting.  On the surface he's a smart cop who detected a phony.  But he's also dealing with his own lies and crimes and acts of violence, and that seems to be getting to him, hence his outburst.    

[shapeshifter]

10 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

I find Kim fascinating.  On the surface, she's overworked and recovering from a car wreck.  But underneath there's a riptide of other factors that are washing her out to sea.    

Mike, too, is interesting.  On the surface he's a smart cop who detected a phony.  But he's also dealing with his own lies and crimes and acts of violence, and that seems to be getting to him, hence his outburst.    

Good point(s), well put. This is what probably makes me relate to these characters. While I am not involved with wealthy wheeler-dealers or violent criminals, in my own quiet life of desperation I appear on the surface to be Miss Goody Two-Shoes, but underneath boils a lot of judgmental crap. Likely many viewers bring similar life experiences to the table of this show.

[MisterBluxom]

4 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

 

Kim, I think, is also wrestling with her involvement in getting Jimmy off regarding the destruction of the tape, the fact that it implicated Jimmy in a felony, and her "knowledge" that Jimmy doctored the documents so that she would get the Mesa Verde case.  She's Lady Macbeth.  

I find Kim fascinating.  On the surface, she's overworked and recovering from a car wreck.  But underneath there's a riptide of other factors that are washing her out to sea.    

Mike, too, is interesting.  On the surface he's a smart cop who detected a phony.  But he's also dealing with his own lies and crimes and acts of violence, and that seems to be getting to him, hence his outburst.    

If I was a member of that group and I detected this fellow was just lying and as a result, wasting everyone's time, I would have found it very difficult - maybe impossible - to sit there and listen to his BS and remain silent. I have no idea how I would react. Maybe I would make up a story about some guy who did something similar and was discovered and got beaten and put into the hospital by the other members of the group? I don't know. Maybe I could make up a new story each weak and increase the level of the make-believe suffering until the guy never came back?

[SunnyBeBe]

11 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

Mesa Verde is a bank that she's doing regulatory work for.  You may not have seen last season that she was burning the candle at both ends, sleeping at her office, showering and changing at a gym instead of going home, really busting her butt for MV and I think another oilman-type client.  Her serious car accident because she nodded off at the wheel, and then Chuck's death, have been a kind of one-two punch that seems to have her re-evaluating if she wants to continue that kind of work. 

Thanks for the info.  So, is Kim financially stable? Did she make enough money to keep her a float for a few months or a year?  

[shapeshifter]

6 hours ago, MissBluxom said:

If I was a member of that group and I detected this fellow was just lying and as a result, wasting everyone's time, I would have found it very difficult - maybe impossible - to sit there and listen to his BS and remain silent. I have no idea how I would react. Maybe I would make up a story about some guy who did something similar and was discovered and got beaten and put into the hospital by the other members of the group? I don't know. Maybe I could make up a new story each weak and increase the level of the make-believe suffering until the guy never came back?

I don't know how common the fake grief group member is IRL or on screen, but I'm sure I've seen it in other series and movies. The motivation can vary from simple loneliness to a serial killer stalking prey. In this case I got the impression that Mike thinks this faker is odious just for faking grief when Mike would literally do anything to undo the death of his son—but, also, I think Mike sees the faker trying to pick up vulnerable women, and that elevates the faker's sin to the level of a "mortal sin," but Mike, ever the cool head, recognizes that calling out and shaming the faker is the greater punishment. I assume that the group leader is a mental health professional, and so would see a grief faker as just suffering from another kind of mental illness—likely more complex than grief—and so would deal with the faker compassionately—which would probably tick Mike off and which Mike expects, so he outs the guy.

[MisterBluxom]

I'm sorry this post is so long. I've seen this kind of behavior in other shows as well. But, I don't remember their names.

I think you are correct that the motivation has a very wide range. On one hand, if someone finds themselves in a particularly lonely phase of their life, I understand that attending a group for some problem could be an easy way to get a degree of companionship. However, in my experience, the kind of companionship found at those meetings are not usually very satisfying.

First of all, the people you meet generally have some serious problems themselves and in order to make a good friend, you first must get past their problems - not an easy task.  Many years ago, I was suffering from some addiction problems and I attended some support group meetings. The people I met had a wide range of other problems which either stemmed from addiction or were a big CAUSE of it.

I remember meeting one person. I'm not going to divulge much info about them. But they were very attractive (sexually) and I was certainly interested. But they were also engaged to be married to one of the group leaders who was a very admirable person. I usually don't have much success with the opposite gender and so I just kept quiet most of the time and only ever said "Hello" to this person. Well, one day, I said "Hello" and they came right out and propositioned me - right on the spot. It was the only time in my life (so far) that has ever happened to me. This person was very attractive but they were also a heavy chain smoker and their entire body reeked of cigarette smoke. That was probably sufficient to make me turn tail and run. But they were also engaged to one of the group leaders and I was not about to help this person cheat on their spouse who had never treated me in any way less than very kind and very generous. I only had to consider their offer for a split second before I politely declined and never returned to that meeting again.

What's my point to this story? This person that I met was clearly damaged. At least in my opinion they were damaged. I couldn't believe they would just come right out and offered me what would ordinarily be a very enticing offer. But had I accepted, I have a very strong feeling that it would have done my recovery a whole Hell of a lot of damage and I'm so glad that I declined.

The rest of my point is that kind of behavior is just so damaging to all three people involved that I can surely understand why Mike would have reacted the way he did. I can't find any fault in his outburst and if I was present, I think I would have said something positive to him at the end of the meeting. Were he to remain silent, on the basis of my experience, it would have been a terrible thing to do. But I'm so glad I never experienced that. I doubt that I would not have been able to find the right choice. I'm pretty sure I would have blown it. However, the show presented me with a mighty fine learning experience. Even though I would have blown the decision, it was very nice to see it presented to me "after the fact" and I was very happy to learn what I could from that display.

In closing, it was a profound lesson in several ways. The spouse was a fine person who did so many kind things for so many people that it was just a real tragedy their engaged partner would have cheated on them in such an easy way without displaying hardly any second thoughts. I found that really hard to accept. to such a fine.  It really shook me up. Shook me right to my core for a few weeks after it happened.

 

It still shakes me up when I think of it. It seems so easy for some folks to be so thoughtless and cruel. It is so difficult to accept that something as important as "love" is so easily squandered and so easily betrayed without giving it a second thought. At least without SEEMING to give it a second thought. Really breaks me up.

Edited September 1, 2018 by MissBluxom

[MisterBluxom]

On 8/29/2018 at 9:07 AM, conquistador said:

The Cousins continue to bore me, they are basically cartoon characters.

Nicely put.

[Clanstarling]

14 hours ago, Ottis said:

I think Kim going back to the courtroom, defying the judge, was the point. She seems to be working up to either “I’ve had enough of this good dooby lawyer shit” or to be Jimmy’s partner in crime. Or both. 

I do think the whole scene with Mike in group was to emphasize his feeling guilty. And listening to all the lies and lame crap around him, I can see how Mike would blow, eventually. I had a debate with a friend about whether Mike was a Mary Sue, demonstrating behaviors that viewers would admire and substitute themselves into his role. I didn’t think so, Mike is too flawed. And in this group session, we saw one of his flaws. 

I love the legend of The Cousins. They can do anything.

And ITA about the annoying eating sounds. I almost fast forwarded the scenes because of that. Ugh!

I didn't notice the eating sounds until toward the end - mostly because I was being annoyed by my husband's eating sounds. LOL.

18 minutes ago, MissBluxom said:

On 8/29/2018 at 6:07 AM, conquistador said:

The Cousins continue to bore me, they are basically cartoon characters.

That's kind of what I love about them. There's no need to explore their emotions or motivations. They're a little break from the other characters who are so nuanced we pay attention to every little pause and movement, and whose motivations we love to debate on the forum. They're a force of nature - nothing to understand. Just violence incarnate.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Clanstarling

[shapeshifter]

On August 29, 2018 at 8:07 AM, conquistador said:

The Cousins continue to bore me, they are basically cartoon characters

"Cartoon characters" is a great description of the cousins, which actually explains why I tolerate their otherwise tedious violence—I see them as dark comic relief, which I prefer to more realistic gangster gore.
Or what @Clanstarling just posted.

 

30 minutes ago, MissBluxom said:

The spouse was a fine person who did so many kind things for so many people that it was just a real tragedy their engaged partner would have cheated on them in such an easy way without displaying hardly any second thoughts. I found that really hard to accept.

A support group for addictions is likely to have members with a variety of addictions (since their brains are already hard wired that way for whatever reason), including a sex addict attending a substance abuse meeting. Also, it's probably not unusual for the leader of the group to be so empathetic that he or she sometimes crosses over into enabler territory. I think Mike ultimately did not trust the group leader to deal with the faker firmly enough. Mike may have even figured that the leader just had to have noticed the faker was faking by now.

[Clanstarling]

4 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

"Cartoon characters" is a great description of the cousins, which actually explains why I tolerate their otherwise tedious violence—I see them as dark comic relief, which I prefer to more realistic gangster gore.
Or what @Clanstarling just posted.

Nah, I think your statement about dark comic relief vs realistic gangster gore is a great perspective that wasn't included at all in my comment. :)

[ShadowFacts]

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

I don't know how common the fake grief group member is IRL or on screen, but I'm sure I've seen it in other series and movies. The motivation can vary from simple loneliness to a serial killer stalking prey. In this case I got the impression that Mike thinks this faker is odious just for faking grief when Mike would literally do anything to undo the death of his son—but, also, I think Mike sees the faker trying to pick up vulnerable women, and that elevates the faker's sin to the level of a "mortal sin," but Mike, ever the cool head, recognizes that calling out and shaming the faker is the greater punishment. I assume that the group leader is a mental health professional, and so would see a grief faker as just suffering from another kind of mental illness—likely more complex than grief—and so would deal with the faker compassionately—which would probably tick Mike off and which Mike expects, so he outs the guy.

He wasn't a very cool head in this instance, but I think his anger originated as much from reaction to what Stacey had just said.  For me it would have been more Mike-like if he had cornered the guy in the parking lot afterwards and intimidated the hell out of him, the way he does so well in so few words.  But this way we got to see more of his grief play out. 

28 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

That's kind of what I love about them. There's no need to explore their emotions or motivations. They're a little break from the other characters who are so nuanced we pay attention to every little pause and movement, and whose motivations we love to debate on the forum. They're a force of nature - nothing to understand. Just violence incarnate.

Yes, but even so, I hope they stay south for a good while.  A little of them goes a long way for me. 

[nodorothyparker]

It seems likely Mike would have had a much more expected Mike-like reaction to the guy had he not just sat there listening to Stacy talking about not always remembering the dead son we already know he feels tortured over, growing visibly uncomfortable with it, and obvious feeling some things about that.  She had barely come up for air before Fakey McFakerson immediately launched into his fake story about his fake wife, which we knew from his earlier coffeeshop conversation with Anita he had already pegged but hadn't felt compelled to do anything about.  In that same conversation Anita intended to reach out to the guy, further inviting him further into her life.  Everyone's got a breaking point and it seemed like that was where Mike hit his.

I don't find a lot of the violent cartel stuff as remotely interesting as a lot of people seem to and frankly consider it the price of admission for the much more exquisitely written Jimmy to Saul story, even if some of the characters in it manage to be compelling nonetheless.  The Cousins are cartoons who wouldn't work as any more than what they are, fringe stylistic elements who show up periodically for a bit of black humor and a reminder that for all the well drawn complicated characters we've been introduced to over both shows that sometimes people really are no more or less than what they seem.

[ShadowFacts]

51 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

It seems likely Mike would have had a much more expected Mike-like reaction to the guy had he not just sat there listening to Stacy talking about not always remembering the dead son we already know he feels tortured over, growing visibly uncomfortable with it, and obvious feeling some things about that.  She had barely come up for air before Fakey McFakerson immediately launched into his fake story about his fake wife, which we knew from his earlier coffeeshop conversation with Anita he had already pegged but hadn't felt compelled to do anything about.  In that same conversation Anita intended to reach out the guy, further inviting him further into her life.  Everyone's got a breaking point and it seemed like that was where Mike hit his.

It's too bad that his breaking point might have broken his relationship with Anita and weakened the connection with Stacey.  We'll see how it plays out, but him saying they were feeding off each other's misery, and adding something about their sad little stories, really wasn't necessary in dealing with the faker.  Having your husband disappear years ago while camping, or your husband the cop murdered on the job, aren't sad little stories, they are tragic big stories.  Mike overstepped, a lot, and traumatized at least two of the group.  It will be interesting to see if/how he tries to mend the breach and how receptive Anita and Stacey might be. 

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, ShadowFacts said:

It's too bad that his breaking point might have broken his relationship with Anita and weakened the connection with Stacey.  We'll see how it plays out, but him saying they were feeding off each other's misery, and adding something about their sad little stories, really wasn't necessary in dealing with the faker.  Having your husband disappear years ago while camping, or your husband the cop murdered on the job, aren't sad little stories, they are tragic big stories.  Mike overstepped, a lot, and traumatized at least two of the group.  It will be interesting to see if/how he tries to mend the breach and how receptive Anita and Stacey might be. 

Yes, right after Mike said all this, any Anita relationship would seem to be killed. 
However, I could also see her forgiving his outburst as it came from a place of pain, plus, she had wanted to ditch the meeting with him, so Anita is not necessarily a true believer in the grief group process either.

[Kel Varnsen]

4 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

I don't know how common the fake grief group member is IRL or on screen, but I'm sure I've seen it in other series and movies. The motivation can vary from simple loneliness to a serial killer stalking prey. In this case I got the impression that Mike thinks this faker is odious just for faking grief when Mike would literally do anything to undo the death of his son—but, also, I think Mike sees the faker trying to pick up vulnerable women, and that elevates the faker's sin to the level of a "mortal sin," but Mike, ever the cool head, recognizes that calling out and shaming the faker is the greater punishment. I assume that the group leader is a mental health professional, and so would see a grief faker as just suffering from another kind of mental illness—likely more complex than grief—and so would deal with the faker compassionately—which would probably tick Mike off and which Mike expects, so he outs the guy.

Considering that the guy couldn't keep his story straight week to week made me think he was just a lonely weirdo rather than a con man or someone with actual malicious intent. The way Mike confronted him made Mike look like a bit of a jerk because of that. Like nice work detective, you cracked the case of the guy who makes up stories in group therapy wide open.

[Milburn Stone]

9 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Yes, right after Mike said all this, any Anita relationship would seem to be killed. 
However, I could also see her forgiving his outburst as it came from a place of pain, plus, she had wanted to ditch the meeting with him, so Anita is not necessarily a true believer in the grief group process either.

I feel the same. Implicit in Mike's attack on the shrink (who should have had the expertise not to be fooled by a fraud) was the message, "these people deserve better." True, he did put down the patients for their self-pitying soliloquies, but he didn't dismiss their pain, and seemed to embrace the idea that in a better world they would be able to find relief for it. 

Edited September 1, 2018 by Milburn Stone

[Clanstarling]

44 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Considering that the guy couldn't keep his story straight week to week made me think he was just a lonely weirdo rather than a con man or someone with actual malicious intent. The way Mike confronted him made Mike look like a bit of a jerk because of that. Like nice work detective, you cracked the case of the guy who makes up stories in group therapy wide open.

As much as I hate to admit it, this particular scene reminded me of my father's reaction to the one time he went to a grief group like that. "All they do is talk about their pain" is what he said (in less flattering words. I think there are certain people for whom this type of group not only doesn't work - but is the furthest thing from what they want to do. Mike's doing it under duress in the first place, and clearly has been pressured to participate. "you wanted me to talk, I talked" Yes, it's jerk behavior. But it's grieving jerk behavior. Though frankly, I give Mike more slack than I did my father (who was a jerk whether or not he was grieving).
 

[ShadowFacts]

I enjoy this discussion, everyone is making good points.  The brief episode promo on the AMC website said something like "Mike burns bridges."  I know this is written by PR people and not the show runners, but he's got to be done with the group.  Maybe he makes amends with Stacey and Anita.  Didn't this group originate at Stacey's church or am I mistaken?  If so, it might be a peer-to-peer type of self-help group with a volunteer leader.  Although Mike used the guy's first and last name which isn't always done in those types of groups.  Anyway, he mentioned that the guy had been telling stories for months so obviously Mike had also been attending for months.  Long enough for him to know it wasn't his cup of tea and tell Stacey it wasn't for him, rather than let it boil over.  It would obviously be unrealistic for anyone to think they would go for awhile and find a "cure" for their deep pain, but some people do find support groups "supportive."  Certainly not everyone, certainly not Mike. 

[nodorothyparker]

3 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

It's too bad that his breaking point might have broken his relationship with Anita and weakened the connection with Stacey.  We'll see how it plays out, but him saying they were feeding off each other's misery, and adding something about their sad little stories, really wasn't necessary in dealing with the faker.  Having your husband disappear years ago while camping, or your husband the cop murdered on the job, aren't sad little stories, they are tragic big stories.  Mike overstepped, a lot, and traumatized at least two of the group.  It will be interesting to see if/how he tries to mend the breach and how receptive Anita and Stacey might be. 

It wasn't necessary but it was honest, which is one of those things that are always pushed at you when you're trying to deal with grief.  You have to work through it.  It's what Kim keeps pushing at Jimmy in wanting him to talk to someone.  She knows there's more going on there on than the somewhat callous, determinedly cheerful veneer he's throwing up and that he's not dealing with Chuck's death or how things were left between them.

Mike also wasn't wrong that no one in the group was really listening to Fakey McFakerson or that they're basically using what's being said in the group as jumping off points to talk about their own feelings some more.  I'm actually curious to see what the fallout for Mike's outburst is going to be.  It may be forgiven as understanding that it was coming from a place of grief and anger or it might not be.  I've seen both reactions among family members in the months since my dad died.  Either way, the group setup clearly isn't helping Mike.

[PeterPirate]

4 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

It's too bad that his breaking point might have broken his relationship with Anita and weakened the connection with Stacey.  We'll see how it plays out, but him saying they were feeding off each other's misery, and adding something about their sad little stories, really wasn't necessary in dealing with the faker.  Having your husband disappear years ago while camping, or your husband the cop murdered on the job, aren't sad little stories, they are tragic big stories.  Mike overstepped, a lot, and traumatized at least two of the group.  It will be interesting to see if/how he tries to mend the breach and how receptive Anita and Stacey might be. 

And the ironic thing is that Stacey had just finished sharing about how she was, in a small way, starting to move past her old life.  

Also, I finally had the chance to re-watch the scene, and it's obvious it was tormenting Mike to hear she had begun to forget about her husband/his son.   

[Clanstarling]

1 hour ago, PeterPirate said:

And the ironic thing is that Stacey had just finished sharing about how she was, in a small way, starting to move past her old life.  

Also, I finally had the chance to re-watch the scene, and it's obvious it was tormenting Mike to hear she had begun to forget about her husband/his son.   

I know, Mike was practically hyperventilating. I don't know much about these groups, but I think it might not be wise for both the parent and spouse to go to the same meeting. To share grief is one thing, but to move on at different speeds would be pretty difficult for the one who isn't moving on. And my guess is the parent would be the one least able to move forward.

Stacey is the only adult in Mike's sphere who knew and loved Matty, so if he wants Stacey to heal (and I think he does), he will avoid talking about Matty, which will isolate him even more.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Clanstarling

[shapeshifter]

15 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

It wasn't necessary but it was honest, which is one of those things that are always pushed at you when you're trying to deal with grief.  You have to work through it.  It's what Kim keeps pushing at Jimmy in wanting him to talk to someone. 

Good point about both Jimmy and Mike dealing with the violent death of an immediate family member. (Fire is considered a violent way to die, isn't it?)

 

 

16 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

Anyway, he mentioned that the guy had been telling stories for months so obviously Mike had also been attending for months. Long enough for him to know it wasn't his cup of tea and tell Stacey it wasn't for him, rather than let it boil over. It would obviously be unrealistic for anyone to think they would go for awhile and find a "cure" for their deep pain, but some people do find support groups "supportive." Certainly not everyone, certainly not Mike. 

 I wonder if Mike might've gotten something out of the group if either 1) the fake guy wasn't there, or 2) the group leader was someone who would've recognized the damage a faker could cause to the other group members' healing process and done something about it
—like maybe take the faker aside after a meeting and tell him he was violating the trust of the group with his dishonesty and give him a business card for a free mental health clinic.

More importantly, I wonder if this was something the writers considered.

Edited September 2, 2018 by shapeshifter

[wendyg]

What strikes me about Kim sitting in court daring the judge to assign her to a case is that she can tell the Mesa Verde people, "Nothing I can do - the judge ordered me to represent this public defendant." I also wondered if maybe she was trying in some way to get closer to Jimmy as he was when they got together - he was working the public courts before he went into elder law. I see it as that and also as exploring the road she might be about to close off by making this greatly enlarged commitment to Mesa Verde, which could establish her as the head of her own HHM.

[Clanstarling]

6 minutes ago, wendyg said:

What strikes me about Kim sitting in court daring the judge to assign her to a case is that she can tell the Mesa Verde people, "Nothing I can do - the judge ordered me to represent this public defendant." I also wondered if maybe she was trying in some way to get closer to Jimmy as he was when they got together - he was working the public courts before he went into elder law. I see it as that and also as exploring the road she might be about to close off by making this greatly enlarged commitment to Mesa Verde, which could establish her as the head of her own HHM.

I like the idea that she was daring the judge in order to back out of Mesa Verde, if only temporarily.

Kim almost literally died from working herself to the bone, and for what? So a bank could get richer. The accident was a huge wake-up call, which she hasn't been able to fully process yet given the death of Chuck, and her worry for Jimmy. I think she's not liking what she sees as her future and is looking for a tipping point to help her make a choice - and she chooses the judge. She specifically went to his courtroom hoping for, I think, just the kind of admonishment he gave her. I bet he has a reputation of following through on his threats/promises.

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, wendyg said:

What strikes me about Kim sitting in court daring the judge to assign her to a case is that she can tell the Mesa Verde people, "Nothing I can do - the judge ordered me to represent this public defendant."

I totally missed that likely motive for Kim's courthouse visits. Maybe she sat in on other judges' cases involving indigent criminals too, and this was the first one to take notice—although they seemed to know each other well enough that he might be the only one she chose.

[SunnyBeBe]

I'm not sure what Kim is signed up for, but, normally, if you want to be on the list to represent court appointed offenders, you sign up, agreeing to accept the amount the state/county pays, which is pretty low.  Then, when the defendant qualifies, they are administratively, assigned to the next attorney on the list.  And, it would be done with Kim's consent.  I think the Mesa Verde people would realize this. Maybe not.  I'm not sure how Kim could make a living just doing court appointed indigent cases. It would be tight. She'd need to seriously downsize her life and I don't think she lives extravagantly now. 

[shapeshifter]

40 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I'm not sure what Kim is signed up for, but, normally, if you want to be on the list to represent court appointed offenders, you sign up, agreeing to accept the amount the state/county pays, which is pretty low.  Then, when the defendant qualifies, they are administratively, assigned to the next attorney on the list.  And, it would be done with Kim's consent.  I think the Mesa Verde people would realize this. Maybe not.  I'm not sure how Kim could make a living just doing court appointed indigent cases. It would be tight. She'd need to seriously downsize her life and I don't think she lives extravagantly now. 

I'm guessing "normally" is the operative word here. Since this wasn't covered in any of the episodes of L&O that I recall watching, I  can only imagine that if she doesn't sign up, but is instead recruited, she cannot legally refuse--which would let her tell Kevin and Paige that she needs to take time off to do this obligatory pro bono work, but she can recommend someone else to work for them.

[MaryPatShelby]

On 8/27/2018 at 9:10 PM, tiredofwork said:

Did anyone else's station have a strange commercial cut in when the judge was looking to ask Kim to rep the guy in court?  What happened as it came back to a different scene?

So, I've read most of the comments and this seems to have happened to some, if not all of us?  Mine cut to commercial mid-sentence while the judge was speaking, then Kim's storyline was never picked up again. Is this consistent with everyone else's viewing or was there more to that scene?

On 8/28/2018 at 8:11 PM, 100Proof said:

I'm totally lost. What deal was Mike going on with Gus. Who's on whose side with all these drug smuggling operations.... salamancas,  kankamankas...who the hell is on whose side and who's double dealing who? I have no flippin idea!

This is why I'm disappointed that the show has become, to a large extent, a BB prequel. 

[Quilt Fairy]

10 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I'm not sure how Kim could make a living just doing court appointed indigent cases. It would be tight. She'd need to seriously downsize her life and I don't think she lives extravagantly now. 

This is exactly what Jimmy was doing when the series opened, and he was forced to live in his office at the back of a nail salon. 

Kim and Mesa Verde remind me of the joke about the dog chasing the car.  What would the dog do if he actually caught the car?  Kim's the dog that caught the car.  Kim recruited Mesa Verde when she was working at HHM, and if she had been their lead attorney with the substantial HHM support staff, things would have been fine.  But Howard screwed up the works, basically to keep punishing Kim, which is why Kim quit and pitched herself to Mesa Verde as a solo practitioner.  Be careful what you wish for.  

[Dev F]

1 hour ago, MaryPatShelby said:

So, I've read most of the comments and this seems to have happened to some, if not all of us?  Mine cut to commercial mid-sentence while the judge was speaking, then Kim's storyline was never picked up again. Is this consistent with everyone else's viewing or was there more to that scene?

What I saw seems to match what people are describing, but I didn't find it confusing or think anything was missing. Kim and the judge chat in his chambers, and he warns her that if he sees her in his courtroom again he'll put her to work on a case. Then there's a time cut and the judge is back in his courtroom continuing with his day, and he notices that, despite his warning, Kim is still there watching the proceedings. He reacts to that as he starts in on the next case, and the scene ends.

Or did some local broadcasts cut away earlier?