Being comfortable in one’s own skin–as well as quick-witted and confident–is perfectly compatible with being bitter and cynical.
In fact I can’t think of any bitter, cynical people (in life or in fiction) who were uncomfortable in their own skins or insecure or whatever it is you believed I was saying about the Saul of BB. Bitter, cynical people are often clever and entertaining company.
What the Saul of BB is not is warm or optimistic about the existence of human happiness or kindness–traits that the Jimmy of BCS still carries to some degree. Jimmy still believed, up until the moment he learned about the tape recording, that he could have a good relationship with his brother, as well as a successful law practice and the love of a good woman (Kim). He was capable of hope.
The Saul of BB knows better–thus “bitter and cynical.”
ETA: Biffster: good point about the similarity with ‘being a hoarder’ and Chuck’s psychology. However, if you look at the other post of mine to which you just replied, please notice that I neither said nor implied that I saw the Saul of BB as “evil” or anything remotely close to that.
Oh, come on. Cynical? Sure, fine. But bitter? :dubious: I would say there is a very select group of people who like hanging out with bitter people: other bitter people. Here’s how my American Heritage Dictionary (Fifth Ed.) defines “bitter” (leaving out the senses that obviously don’t apply, like taste): “Marked by resentment or cynicism: he was a bitter, elderly man with a grey face.” That’s not the description of a “crazy, colorful lawyer” who is “truly comfortable in his own skin”.
But I have a hard time buying that you even believe this oddball definition of “bitter” when you put it like this:
Someone like that probably *would *be bitter. Also haunted and morose. That’s not Saul from BB at all, certainly not before the very end anyway.
This I do agree with. I was already intending to note that I thought **Biffster **misinterpreted where I was coming from. (I understand where his/her sentiment is coming from, though, as there are a lot of people out there–including many critics–who liken Saul to Walt and describe BCS as the story of Saul’s descent into evil. I definitely disagree with that as well.)
In this episode, Hamlin noted that the client documents should have been secured in the firm’s offices and had they been, Jimmy would not have been able to tamper with them.
To agree with you, I don’t see how the outcome could be in doubt considering we know that Jimmy doesn’t get disbarred. I guess the quote you posted could be referring to the possibility of a suspension, but that seems unlikely.
I thought it was a given that Chuck had OCD, or some variant of it. Maybe because there’s a lot of OCD in my family, and Chuck’s behavior seems very familiar to me. His ‘electrophobia’ is very much like the germaphobia I’ve seen. The main difference is that on some level people with OCD know their phobias are not actually real, whereas Chuck seems convinced that his electric allergy is a real thing despite all evidence to the contrary. But that could be explained as being too stubborn to admit he has a mental issue.
That would make more sense to me if it were the kind of OCD thing where you feel you have to touch the doorhandle three times before leaving or whatever. But I just want to stick up for my fellow “germaphobes”. I used to get called that name about ten or fifteen years ago, but in more recent years have felt vindicated by the more aggressive push for handwashing by public health authorities in the wake of avian flu and so on. I quipped not long ago to a friend, who had also been tagged with that “germaphobe” label, something to the effect of “it’s no longer OCD, it’s CDC”, which he liked a lot.
Point is, you’re not going to find a video like that one on the CDC site advising people how to steer clear of electromagnetism. Germs are a *real *threat; EMFs (at normally experienced levels), not so much.
As usual - getting here a bit late (we record the show on Monday and watch it on Tuesday eve.)
I hung on every moment of this ep - but was nonetheless somewhat disappointed. Agree with everyone, that Chuck’s acting is superb. And I couldn’t wait for the crackup. Was SO disappointed as I went to fastforwarded through the final commercial break, and realized the ep was almost over.
But the plan struck me as less clever than I had expected. I didn’t know who the big black guy was, but as soon as he bumped into Chuck, I realized what had happened. So what was the deal about making sure there was a copy of the tape (“Bingo!”), or the wordplay over destroying the tape? And what was the point of getting Chuck’s wife there? Was it just one of many factors intended to rattle Chuck? And why was it assumed that she would hate Jimmy after the hearing?
Sure, Kim voiced one objection about the tape being characterized as evidence, but I don’t see how those things played out. Instead, it was simply, “slip a battery in the pocket, and watch him go nuts.”
Oh, and don’t go too far in expecting actual legal practice to apply to the show. For example, the bar would never have rested before cross. It seems the show treats the law more like pirates treat the code, more like guidelines!
It bugs me that they left out cross-examination of Chuck, where there could have been a shot at rehabilitating Chuck the witness. That could have been interesting. And they left out closing arguments.
Jimmy and Kim wanted the tape in evidence, but didn’t want Howard and Chuck to know that they wanted it in evidence. So they made a point of using language that made it look like they were hiding the existence of the tape so that Chuck would insist on different language, and he would think he got a victory over them when he put it in to the inventory of damages. If Howard realized that they wanted the tape in evidence, he might realize what their plan was and be more aggressive about getting Chuck to pull out of the hearing, but with them objecting to the tape he felt more confident that Chuck’s plan would work without hurting HHM.
She was there to help rattle Chuck, and she’s going to hate Jimmy because he made Chuck break down on the witness stand and exposed his illness. I think Jimmy also brought her in as one last favor to his brother, to stop the ‘Chuck dying alone’ scenario that he talked about two episodes ago - now that Chuck isn’t keeping his condition secret, he has someone close to him he can designate medical power of attorney to.
Two nice little things people caught on another forum: The clock on the wall was showing 12:16 when it was removed, just like the 1216 address. And Jimmy ‘happened’ to use lung cancer as the physical illness to ask Chuck if he would tell about, which is what Walter White had in Breaking Bad and didn’t tell his wife about for a while.
I get what you’re saying SlackerInc, and I don’t know if there’s an exact real-world parallel where some OCD victims are afraid of entirely fictional things like electricity allergies. But for a TV version of mental illness it looks very much like the OCD I’ve seen.
And I didn’t mean to insult normal but germ-conscious folks like you by mentioning OCD and germaphobia together- OCD victims take it to a whole other level. For instance, a family member refusing to let garden tomatoes be brought into the house because a rabid raccoon may have licked them, and the house would be infected with the Rabies virus. Sound familiar? Just substitute cellphones for tomatoes.
Aha, those are nice little Easter eggs I didn’t catch.
Ah yes, I’ve heard that “redirect” lingo on many a legal drama (I especially like The Good Wife). So how does it end? Obviously they can’t just go back and forth forever. Does the prosecution really get both the first and last word? Or is it that whichever side called the witness gets to go first and last?
ETA:
Fair enough! (And jeez, just spray 'em with vinegar before you pick 'em if you’re worried about what germs they may have on their skin.)
During initial questioning (‘direct examination’) the person calling the witness gets to ask basically whatever they want as long as it’s relevant to the case, then the other side gets to cross examine where they can ask questions that (depending on the court) are either relevant to the case or the previous testimony. The person calling the witness can then use ‘redirect’ (meaning ‘repeat direct examination’ not ‘redirect’ in the usual sense) questioning to address anything that came up in cross examination, but not any new lines of questioning. If the judge agrees, the other side can then ‘recross’ to question anything that came up in redirect, and redirect and recross can continue as long as the judge approves. There is a right to direct, cross, and redirect examination, but recross and any further redirect are entirely up to the court’s discretion and are fairly rare.
I don’t know how many of you listen to the Insider Podcast, but I was listening to it just now and the episode’s writer said his sister is a lawyer, and he ran the script by her and got some notes on things to change to make it more realistic. He also watched an entire six-hour-long video of a disbarment hearing (although the defendant lost in that case). He acknowledged combining some things for dramatic purposes (evidentiary hearing and witness questioning), and purposely diverging from the usual “yes/no” questions when questioning witnesses to make it less repetitive (the example he gave: asking “which partner was most opposed to Jimmy joining the firm?” instead of “It was Chuck who was most opposed, is that correct?”.
One thing that I couldn’t look past in this episode was the court accommodating Chuck’s “illness”. I couldn’t see the board allowing the room to be voided of all electronics for the sake of one witness’s affliction that was never diagnosed or confirmed by any medical professional.
Also, is it normal for judges (or lawyer panels) to allow any stray questioning to go on unchecked until someone yells “objection!”?
<Just got around to watching this, had to wait to watch with friend>
I enjoyed it a lot actually, even though the story was exactly what I hoped would not happen.
Great acting all round, and my friend made a good point that I hadn’t considered about this defense:
Chuck’s initial entrapment of Jimmy was a flawed plan – it shouldn’t have worked. But Chuck knew Jimmy well enough to know how to press his buttons, knew that the fact he’d feel betrayed would needle at him until he did something drastic.
Well, right back atcha Chuck: Jimmy’s method was to do basically the same thing. He knew how to provoke his brother. He knows the kinds of outbursts his brother is prone to making.
The episode could have finished with the PI standing up and saying “I’m a witness”
Yes and another reason to be pleased to see him: I’d seen him on a number of “After they were famous” lists, as he’d basically had no work since BB.
Yep, I’ve never really got the whole “transformation into SG” thing. He’s not Anakin Skywalker right now, he’s basically already Saul.
Change name, lose Kim and lose his aspiration about the future, and he’s ready for Walt and Jessie to walk in.
I thought Jimmy’s questioning of his brother *was *the cross.