Leaving Fring’s origins somewhat murky enhanced the character. He wasn’t simply violent and vengeful in the stereotypical narco-terrorist mode, he showed ambition and rationality that made him more of a calculating evil person. More of the creativity and complexity in characters that made the show a stand out.
Especially the way they gradually developed the back story for Hector and Gus. Some old cripple turns out to be a former crime (sub)boss. Gus is the bad guy sometimes and the good guy other times. The constant factor was that everything Gus did was to further his interests.
I, too, was wondering about his family. There was evidence of children at his home.
I assumed he was a close relative of Pinochet or of a major crime family; not a big shot himself (explaining his anonymity) but with EXTREMELY powerful close connections who would avenge his death but probably not the death of his slum kid partner (and if that partner was also his boyfriend it could be a reason a brilliant and capable member of the family is not in Chile).
His near obsession with his jacket and appearance might imply a military background, or just OCD. My most difficult suspension of disbelief moment of the entire series was that Gus would wear a clip on tie.
“9/11 conspiracy” returns about 27,600,000 results, but that doesn’t make it plausible either.
Law Enforcement prioritizes investigations, and not every LEO is free to pursue whatever investigation he wants as he sees fit. Not permitting Hank to dedicate himself to a single type of meth is perfectly within the realm of reasonable resource management. Even if Hank worked for the Blue Meth Investigation Agency there would be no reason to believe that there was a mole because that’s not how narrative works. If Gilligan & Co had intended for anyone to believe that a mole existed they would’ve placed at least a shred of evidence to support the idea in the show. Viewed as a matter of narrative, Hank was ordered off the case because it was necessary for him to work without the support of the DEA in order to hobble his investigation. Even in-universe the DEA’s position wasn’t unreasonable in the slightest. Granted, Hank’s superiors were disinclined to suspect Fring because of their previous association with him, but when Hank can’t present anything other than a hunch and a eventually few scraps of easily-dismissed “evidence” a mole really isn’t required.
This is just the sort of left field theorycrafting that is entertaining in small doses but should never be taken seriously.
They explained it on the show. Gus Fring donated a lot of money to DEA, and besides that he and Merkert were personal friends. There was no mole, Gus just cleverly placed himself as a friend to DEA and the people running it, ensuring that in the case anyone ever thought to accuse him, he’d have a sizeable buffer against investigation. Simple everyday politics.
As for why the Heisenberg investigation wasn’t going anywhere, it’s because there was nothing new to investigate. At some point you gotta cut your losses, focus on something else and maybe re-open the case when you actually got something.
Really? It made perfect sense to me. The clip-on was for when he was the law-abiding fry cook. When the time came to murder rivals, he put on a tie (and jacket) befitting a drug kingpin.
Giancarlo Esposito confirms the Pinochet connection in this video about the untold backstory of Gus Fring.
Specifically, he used a Spanish word that was translated as partner (I think “companero”). Does that have the same ambiguity as the English word? I seem to remember reading on hitfix that Alan Sepinwall had asked Gilligan about it and Gilligan had said he hadn’t specifically intended for them to be lovers, but liked that that interpretation was possible.
Who explained it in the show?
The writers having a complete coherent backstory in mind certainly helps create more interesting fully fleshed characters but the fact that we feel there is one and yet are left with blanks for our imaginations to fill in is better yet.
The writers did.
Who said it?
Need everything spelled out for you, eh?
Nevermind, I really don’t want to play games. Do you honestly think “The writers said it” is the answer I was looking for? I mean, you could answer that for pretty much any “who said that line in the show/movie?”
I was going somewhere with that, but I’ll drop it since you don’t seem to have much interest in it.
What are you asking about? That Gus had friendly relations with the DEA was shown in the scene where he toured the office as a sponsor of the DEA fun run, and the photo of him and the old ASAC posing with the big cheque in the ASAC’s office when Hank voices his suspicions. I don’t think there’s a scene that explicitly explains that that is the reason Gus is safe from DEA investigations and he doesn’t need a mole. In favour of the mole theory, there is a scene (that I don’t remember very well) where Mike reassures Gus that the DEA have nothing solid on him that implies Mike has inside information.
A)There’s no reason why he can’t donate money/time AND have a mole. It seems like that would be a good idea.
B)It wasn’t just implied, at some point it all that was said out loud. My question is, who said it out loud? Who said “Gus treats the DEA really well so we should leave him alone.” What is his motivation for saying that. Was he honestly concerned about the stream of money coming into the department or was he on Gus’ payroll?
A) I agree - I think the mole theory’s plausible because of the scene with Mike I mentioned, but I wasn’t sure whether you were asking about it being explained that Gus was a good friend of the DEA(shown in those scenes I mentioned) or Gus being a good friend of the DEA was the sole reason he was safe from investigation until Hank became obsessed with chasing him (Which I don’t think was explicitly stated, but is a conclusion people could have come to)
B) The closest I can remember is when Hank first relays his suspicions to the ASAC and the ASAC says something along the lines of “don’t be silly, he’s a respectable local businessman and a friend of law enforcement”. The ASAC does call Gus in for questioning after that, but all the non-Hank people in the room (a lot of them, and from different departments) buy his story. Could his story have been good because he was tipped off? Possibly - he did seem to be caught unawares, but a man like Gus would likely be careful enough to pretend (but also careful enough to have an innocent story for suspicious occurences, like his relationship to a dead meth cook becoming known.)
Yes, when they brought Gus in for some questions about his fingerprints in Gale’s house, everyone but Hank seemed satisfied with Gus’s explanations. I believe his supervisor stressed what a good friend to the DEA Gus was and it was farfetched to think he was a drug dealer. Hank still has his suspicions and won’t let it go (and he’s correct, of course).
Gus is the type of guy that is prepared for almost everything. After he poisons the cartel members, he’s taken to the triage he had set up–which is stocked with his own blood (I think it’s his own, but definitely the same type) and the doctor even knows Jesse’s blood type and drug test results–a little weed but no diseases. IIRC, the story about Gale’s scholarship checked out.
I rewatched the relevant scenes. In Problem Dog (3.7), Hank presents his suspicions to Gomie and the ASAC, who both seem reluctant to believe him and stress the weakness of his evidence until the scene ends on Hank’s fingerprint revalation. In Hermanos (3.8), Gus is interviewed by Hank, Gomie, the ASAC and Tim from the APD (I think the guy who brought Gale’s murder to Hank in the first place). Gomie says he thinks he buys the story, the ASAC admits to bias as Gus is a good friend of the DEA and says he believes him, and Tim agrees that he thinks Gus is clean. Near the end of Hermanos is the conversation between Mike and Gus I was thinking about. Mike says he’s done some digging around and neither the DEA or the APD consider Gus a person of interest - maybe he’s got someone on the inside, maybe it’s just that as an ex-cop he’s got buddies who’re willing to tell him the gossip on the big blue meth case and recent murder.
Also in Hermanos, Gus seems a lot more scared of the idea that Hank is looking into his past in Chile than anything else and in the flashback, Eladio calls Gus Max’s “socio” when they’re talking business, and when it’s clear that Eladio is upset and he’s implying he thinks Gus is expendable, Max pleads for Gus’ life calling Gus his “companero” - do the different Spanish words have particular implications?