# Better Call Saul (Season 3) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 8, 2017, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040 "2017-04-08T04:28:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040/401 "2017-05-09T16:24:34Z")
> [@JohnGalt](#): > > … > Speaking of works, do batteries emit electrical noise when they’re not connected to anything? I thought it was going to be a small voice recorder or MP3 player. > … > [@SlackerInc](#): > > … > I’m no expert, but I was briefly an electrical engineering major years ago, and I agree with this nitpick. It would have been better for it to be an already-on cell phone (they made really small ones then, before people always needed a certain amount of size for the screen). > … I don’t see how this was a problem. The problem is all in Chuck’s head so it doesn’t have to fit with the reality of electricity. We’ve already seen that Chuck is averse to batteries, whether they’re active or not. He doesn’t just ask people to turn their phones off. He asks that they not be in the room. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040/402 "2017-05-09T16:26:26Z")
The [NY Times recapper](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/arts/television/better-call-saul-recap-chicanery.html?_r=0) has an interesting take on what Jimmy’s strategy was. I don’t agree with it, but I can see how there is some textual support in there: > [@](#): > > If I follow the logic of Jimmy’s cross-examination, it goes like this. Chuck’s hatred leads him to an elaborate charade centered upon a longtime claim that he is stricken with electromagnetic hypersensitivity, or E.H.S. The battery-in-the-pocket moment proves that Chuck has no genuine physical aversion to electromagnetic anything. And the fact that he never told his wife, Rebecca (Ann Cusack), about this “malady” supports the notion that Chuck has been playing a long con. > > What’s striking about this line of reasoning is that Jimmy knows it is malarkey. He knows that even if Chuck’s symptoms are psychosomatic, they are authentic, not a show. Jimmy’s argument is a lie told to tarnish Chuck as a liar. At the same time, Chuck acknowledges that he was playing up his symptoms in order to provoke Jimmy’s confession. So he is a conniver, too.[…] > > This spittle-inflected monologue stops the proceedings. Behold, a man unhinged, motivated by hatred, eager to victimize a brother he has long despised. I rewatched, and there’s technically nothing in there to disprove this theory of the case. But I definitely thought Jimmy was trying to go for “psychosomatic”, not “long con”. And haven’t we seen Chuck react to electricity in situations when he didn’t need to just to keep up his image? What do you all think? One thing I definitely think the NYT got wrong, although I again can’t technically prove it: > [@](#): > > Really, though, the outcome of the hearing is very much up in the air. We don’t know what the lawyer-judges will make of all this. That could be true in real life, I suppose. But the way the “lawyer-judges” were looking at Chuck, and the way he was filmed at the very end, looking small and defeated (and a dead ringer for Joe Lieberman!) is all the metatextual information we need to know that Jimmy and Kim won. The recapper also points out that the newspapers under the lantern would perhaps betray what a late date the photos were taken. But the same recapper acknowledges this seems unlikely to be a blunder Jimmy would make (so it’s probably just something the writers overlooked). ETA: > [@davidm](#): > > I don’t see how this was a problem. The problem is all in Chuck’s head so it doesn’t have to fit with the reality of electricity. We’ve already seen that Chuck is averse to batteries, whether they’re active or not. He doesn’t just ask people to turn their phones off. He asks that they not be in the room. It’s not a major problem, but I would think just to be safe Jimmy would want something where he could say “if electrical fields really bothered you, why didn’t this?” Chuck could have parried this (though he didn’t) by saying he has people leave phones outside so they don’t have to mess with the batteries. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040/403 "2017-05-09T16:35:06Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > I don’t see how this was a problem. The problem is all in Chuck’s head so it doesn’t have to fit with the reality of electricity. We’ve already seen that Chuck is averse to batteries, whether they’re active or not. He doesn’t just ask people to turn their phones off. He asks that they not be in the room. Chuck’s subconscious probably tries to arrange things so it’s harder for him to be caught out. While a phone powered down but with a charged battery won’t create the EM fields he thinks it does, if he allowed people to just power down their phones, inevitably someone would think they turned it off, get a call, and people would wonder why he didn’t notice that the phone was on instead of off. By being averse to the whole thing, he doesn’t risk that exposure. (Note that I’m not saying ‘he’s faking the condition’, when you have a mental illness your mind works against you without you realizing it.) ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040/404 "2017-05-09T16:49:51Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I rewatched, and there’s technically nothing in there to disprove this theory of the case. But I definitely thought Jimmy was trying to go for “psychosomatic”, not “long con”. And haven’t we seen Chuck react to electricity in situations when he didn’t need to just to keep up his image? What do you all think? Absolutely. Remember the scene from the first season when he stole (well, he left money for) a neighbor’s newspaper? He was terrified of going outside, covered himself in his space blankets, etc… And he certainly wasn’t faking last night when his ex-wife’s cell phone was making him sick (at least in his mind). Or when he was catatonic in the hospital due to the machines and the doctor wanted to commit him. Chuck can be manipulative, but if he doesn’t have sensitivity he is at least convinced he does and in fact it is making his life hell. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040/405 "2017-05-09T16:57:19Z")
I haven’t seen the latest episode, but it seems clear to me that Jimmy’s plan is to tell the bar that everything he has said, including the written confession, was said because Jimmy felt that Chuck is on the edge of self-destruction and Jimmy was trying to protect him. That would explain why he was so willing to add in the extra apology to Chuck when the prosecutor demanded it - it actually helped with his plan. To prove his case, he can bring in as a witness the doctor who treated Chuck, who will testify that Chuck had already injured himself before, that he is delusional, and that Jimmy’s actions portrayed him as a brother deeply concerned for Chuck’s well-being, and who knew that Chuck was a danger to himself. He could probably bring in Ernesto, who can testify to all of Chuck’s weirdnesses, and that Chuck had fired him capriciously. The significance of the tape may be that if Chuck presents the tape as evidence, it may give Jimmy the right to cross-examine him, which would either force Chuck to attempt to sit in a chair surrounded by electronics, under bright lighting, or risk asking the Bar for the kind of accomodations that would make Jimmy’s case for him. I can picture a scene where Jimmy says something like, ‘is this the tape recorder you used?’ Then handing Chuck the running tape recorder, causing Chuck to freak out and drop it. Or something like that. I think this will end with Jimmy being exonerrated or given a slap on the wrist, and Chuck being disbarred for being mentally incompetent. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040/406 "2017-05-09T17:16:28Z")
I keep wondering if we’ll find out Ernesto’s name is Fring. Whether he is or not, I hope we’ll learn something about Gustavo’s wife and kids this season. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040/407 "2017-05-09T17:45:08Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > If you listen to the State Bar’s case at the hearing You’re an episode ahead of me I think. Anyway as of Ep 4 seemed to me Jimmy’s position was less than safe assuming the strategy was to avoid disbarment by calling attention to Chuck’s behavior. A board _could_ heavily consider the reason a lawyer confessed to a felony charge in a break in. Maybe _nobody_ in PH restaurant would call the cops either when they fled Hector’s guys. But nothing to bank on in either case. Like I said, how would Jimmy know the committee won’t take a min-Javert approach and say ‘you’re an admitted felon? OK you’re not a lawyer’. That would hardly be preposterous IMO. It doesn’t mean Chuck would look good, or sane. If it turns out the emphasis in the show is how valid the tape was and Chuck’s behavior, well that’s the assumption the writers were working backward from. Again I’ve never thought BB or BCS were dumb shows, but BB certainly had some plot twists with plausibility issues. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_John\_Marcej](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Richard\_John\_Marcej](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_John_Marcej)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040/408 "2017-05-09T17:45:24Z")
When they were showing clips for next week, did anyone else catch the sound of Kim saying “Saul Goodman”? Next week’s title is _“Off Brand”_ and part of the synopsis is: \*\*\*Jimmy embarks on a new endeavor. \*\*\* So we could see the beginning of Saul. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040/409 "2017-05-09T17:48:45Z")
> [@Richard\_John\_Marcej](#): > > When they were showing clips for next week, did anyone else catch the sound of Kim saying “Saul Goodman”? Yep. As others have speculated, I think this was the breaking point. Jimmy is bitter and wants no more association with his brother. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040/410 "2017-05-09T17:55:25Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > Again I’ve never thought BB or BCS were dumb shows, but BB certainly had some plot twists with plausibility issues. I only recall one, but boy was it a doozy. (The berries. Oh, dear god, the berries. :smack: SO dumb, and a stain on an otherwise near-perfect show.) ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040/411 "2017-05-09T17:59:12Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > The [NY Times recapper](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/arts/television/better-call-saul-recap-chicanery.html?_r=0) has an interesting take on what Jimmy’s strategy was. I don’t agree with it, but I can see how there is some textual support in there: > > I rewatched, and there’s technically nothing in there to disprove this theory of the case. But I definitely thought Jimmy was trying to go for “psychosomatic”, not “long con”. And haven’t we seen Chuck react to electricity in situations when he didn’t need to just to keep up his image? What do you all think? Well, I agree more with your take than I do with The Times. I think that Jimmy framed it more as him finally taking this opportunity that Chuck presented him with to stage not only his defense, but also his brother’s intervention. I don’t think he presented things intentionally to paint his brother as a malicious, intentional liar, he was only trying to demonstrate the profound depth of his delusions. It’s actually a much better approach than any of us specifically predicted, since it not only portrays his past actions as reasonable, it also shows that he IS STILL looking out for his brother by confronting the problem and trying to get him the help he needs, even after his brother set him up for disbarment. He’s wasn’t attacking his brother up there, he was attacking his brother’s mental illness, so that once again, he ends up looking like the good guy, who everybody likes. And his brother looks like the crazy, ungrateful, sad-sack nobody likes. Yet again. I hesitate to say it, because I don’t think I want it to happen, but does anybody think suicide is a possibility here? ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040/412 "2017-05-09T18:20:44Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > I hesitate to say it, because I don’t think I want it to happen, but does anybody think suicide is a possibility here? That never even occurred to me. Before this episode I would have said Chuck just isn’t the type. But his pride is everything to him and given the recent humiliation, I _could_ see things heading down that track if he failed to recover face. Not saying it will, but it would be devastating to “Jimmy McGill” however much he tried to brush it off and would lead to another layer in the hardened shell that helps create “Saul Goodman.” Maybe it’s Chuck’s death that pushes him over the edge, not Kim’s ( or whatever tragedy we imagine for Kim ). Or perhaps both - losing the two people he genuinely loved in a more final way than just breakup/estrangement. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040/413 "2017-05-09T19:24:30Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > Chuck’s subconscious probably tries to arrange things so it’s harder for him to be caught out. While a phone powered down but with a charged battery won’t create the EM fields he thinks it does, if he allowed people to just power down their phones, inevitably someone would think they turned it off, get a call, and people would wonder why he didn’t notice that the phone was on instead of off. By being averse to the whole thing, he doesn’t risk that exposure. (Note that I’m not saying ‘he’s faking the condition’, when you have a mental illness your mind works against you without you realizing it.) Chuck’s “arranging things” rung a bell for me: perhaps Chuck’s illness is actually some extreme form of OCD, where he must control his environment absolutely. Jimmy has always been that one spontaneous factor that he has no control over and Chuck despises him for it. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040/414 "2017-05-09T20:55:29Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > Chuck’s “arranging things” rung a bell for me: perhaps Chuck’s illness is actually some extreme form of OCD, where he must control his environment absolutely. Jimmy has always been that one spontaneous factor that he has no control over and Chuck despises him for it. I’ve seen Chuck as a control freak from the beginning. It’s ethically problematic to point out that some sick people sometimes compensate for whatever physical limitations they suffer, by becoming more intent on making their surroundings and those they interact with adhere to the conditions the invalid decrees. It’s tricky, ethically, because it feels a bit like ‘kicking the victim.’ But it’s a phenomenon with which many are familiar. When the domineering sick person is _psychosomatically_ ill, the ethics of recognizing his or her coercion of others becomes less muddy–it’s easier to say ‘Chuck is _getting something_ out of making everyone he deals with obey his decrees’ than would be the case if Chuck were, say, a cancer patient. If Chuck is disbarred and/or expelled (via a buyout) from his law firm, the effect will be devastating to a degree that might plausibly lead to suicide. Or even more heartbreaking from Jimmy’s point of view: to a failed suicide that leads to Chuck being, essentially, a vegetable. Something like that–the knowledge that his ruined brother’s body lives on–would go a long way to explaining the bitter, cynical Saul we all know from _Breaking Bad_. ETA: And Biffster, to more directly address your post: I’d guess that Chuck has been an OCD-type (or at least unusually controlling of others) all his life–long before the supposed sensitivity to electro-magnetism arose. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040/415 "2017-05-09T21:03:40Z")
Side note: If you watch the show with closed captions, they make a point of captioning “electricity buzzing” whenever there’s that hum as they zoom on electric lights and exit signs. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040/416 "2017-05-09T21:17:19Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > Side note: If you watch the show with closed captions, they make a point of captioning “electricity buzzing” whenever there’s that hum as they zoom on electric lights and exit signs. Yes, I think \*someone \*already mentioned that. 😉 > [@Pantastic](#): > > Interesting note for people who don’t use closed captions: In all of the Chuck episodes, the captions call out ‘electricity buzzing’ when they zoom in on electrical devices. ETA: I specially liked the effect of the EXIT signs from Chuck’s POV, which were (supposed to be) the only electric devices in the room, where all you saw was the intense light of the letters, but the rest of the sign was invisible. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040/417 "2017-05-09T21:31:06Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Something like that–the knowledge that his ruined brother’s body lives on–would go a long way to explaining the bitter, cynical Saul we all know from _Breaking Bad_. Huh? That’s not how I remember him on BB at all, and I don’t think I’m alone. Remember, a lot of people were expecting _Better Call Saul_ to be a half hour comedy! In fact, that was the showrunners’ [initial intent:](http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/better-call-saul-bob-odenkirk-breaking-bad-1201404233/) > [@](#): > > At first, they came up with a version of “Saul” that was a half-hour comedy. “It would have been: You never leave the guy’s office, and he’s kind of a crazy, colorful lawyer,” Gilligan recalls. And: > [@](#): > > The Saul Goodman we meet in “Breaking Bad” is “truly comfortable in his own skin,” Gilligan explains. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040/418 "2017-05-09T22:38:08Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > I’ve seen Chuck as a control freak from the beginning. It’s ethically problematic to point out that some sick people sometimes compensate for whatever physical limitations they suffer, by becoming more intent on making their surroundings and those they interact with adhere to the conditions the invalid decrees. It’s tricky, ethically, because it feels a bit like ‘kicking the victim.’ But it’s a phenomenon with which many are familiar. > > When the domineering sick person is _psychosomatically_ ill, the ethics of recognizing his or her coercion of others becomes less muddy–it’s easier to say ‘Chuck is _getting something_ out of making everyone he deals with obey his decrees’ than would be the case if Chuck were, say, a cancer patient. > > If Chuck is disbarred and/or expelled (via a buyout) from his law firm, the effect will be devastating to a degree that might plausibly lead to suicide. Or even more heartbreaking from Jimmy’s point of view: to a failed suicide that leads to Chuck being, essentially, a vegetable. Something like that–the knowledge that his ruined brother’s body lives on–would go a long way to explaining the bitter, cynical Saul we all know from _Breaking Bad_. > > ETA: And Biffster, to more directly address your post: I’d guess that Chuck has been an OCD-type (or at least unusually controlling of others) all his life–long before the supposed sensitivity to electro-magnetism arose. I agree with that analyses. Chuck has likely always been a little anal-retentive my-penguin-always-faces-due-south, but it has become more outlandish as he has gotten older. Not that different from a hoarder, in a way, in that he wants absolute control over his surroundings in order to feel secure. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040/419 "2017-05-09T22:55:11Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > Yes, I think \*someone \*already mentioned that. 😉 I swear I looked at my old post, saw that I left it off, and went to add it back. I think maybe you broke into my post and doctored the side notes… ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040/420 "2017-05-09T22:59:25Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Huh? That’s not how I remember him on BB at all, and I don’t think I’m alone. Remember, a lot of people were expecting _Better Call Saul_ to be a half hour comedy! In fact, that was the showrunners’ [initial intent:](http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/better-call-saul-bob-odenkirk-breaking-bad-1201404233/) > > And: I would concur. Saul was a a big part of the comic relief on Breaking Bad. He was crooked, but not evil. Even the frantic phone call to Hank i. The wrecking yard was clearly something he had misgivings about. The one where Francesca informs him he’s going to have to start paying her more. If he had just been evil, I don’t think he would have warranted his own show. The fact that we have some sympathy for his pathetic life as Gene in Omaha shows that there must still be a human element there. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/better-call-saul-season-3/784040.md?page=22)