Chuck is a classic representation of lawful evil. Evil is maybe a harsh judgment, Lawful Asshole is maybe more fair, but yeah. Aligning with the law doesn't make you a good person.
Evil is more behavioral than philosophical. His behavior profits himself, while casting judgment on typically the less fortunate, helping lock them in cages where slave labor ensues for profit. The machine creates the problems that it pretends to try to correct. Chuck is a useful idiot for the machine.
I think “evil” isn’t too much of a stretch. He’s not a demon, his is a purely human evil. But it’s the evil of someone who will excuse their own actions, no matter how vile, while placing every sin at the foot of someone else. Chuck is using Jimmy as his scapegoat, almost literally. He places all the sins he feels the most shame about on Jimmy’s shoulders.
Agreed, the Lawful Arsehole alignment summarises Chuck nicely because he's only evil to certain individuals (mostly Jimmy, but many others also) and he does morally reprehensible white-collar things to them to control their behaviour, rather than beat them up or murder them. Still sociopathic behaviour, even if limited to whomever Chuck judges as "bad". Chuck thinks he's morally righteous though, so in an RPG he would probably be Lawful Good (with Evil-Lite tendencies). I'd abbreviate that to LA as per your idea..
That’s the point of Walter’s flashback, to be fair. Bob Odenkirk himself even said that despite being a bad person, Jimmy’s psyche was so damaged that he’s like an abuse victim who keeps dating abusive boyfriends. In case of Jimmy, he has an affinity with sick abusive authoritative figures. First it was Chuck. Then it was Walter. Walter had both the ego and arrogance of Chuck and the murderous psychotic tendencies of Lalo.
I think evil is an adequate word to be honest. Evil to me doesn't have to be murder and moustache twirling. Letting resentment win, for example, is an act of evil, and Chuck was just as resentful as Walt.
@@asytippyy352 IMPO the line to be crossed for "evil" is knowingly harming someone, whether physically, emotionally or otherwise, without a reasonable, non-selfish "greater good". Chuck only BARELY misses the criteria because of that last point, but I could easily argue either side of whether he hurt Jimmy for the ACTUAL greater good or if it's just rationalizing on Chuck's part.
The end of the show gives us the true winner of this contest: Jimmy despite all his flaws and temptations to keep living as Saul decided to face his punishment, Chuck wasn’t strong enough to do so… It wasn’t that Jimmy became a hero all of sudden, but in contrast to Chuck he did let the Law and Society see, judge, and punish him for what he was, so we may say in the very end he became what Chuck pretended to be. Howard on the other hand, really was a good guy that became collateral damage for no real fault of his own..
I love this analysis. I read a post about how "Breaking Bad is about loving life at the expense of the people around you, and Better Call Saul is about loving the people around you at the expense of your life," and I think there's no better summation of both shows.
The best part is that Jimmy had to admit to his regrets to fully redeem himself even when they weren't crimes (and in fact were just Jimmy reporting on Chuck's crimes to the insurance company). That alone is the ultimate middle finger to Chuck's entire philosophy.
Howard is a 'good guy'? He's a corporate suit spinning the wheels of an inherently usurious system for profit, victimizing the vulnerable animals he consumes along with 99% of the rest of 'humanity'.
@@JS-wp4gs Howard was a sycophant but after Chuck's death, does actually try and work on himself and try to bury the hatchet and do better by others. He was basically a normal guy in a crazy world and had his problems, suffered a loss, and then coped with it quite normally and tried to step up to be better than his previous self, and offered an olive branch and tried to also help Jimmy out. I wouldn't call him a good guy, he was a sycophant that ended up going along with wrong, but, he did mature and try to "Mend" the problems he helped with, which in this world, is kinda the most a lot of people can do, and is about as good as it gets with most BB/BCS characters. By the time he's collateral, it feels wrong and viciously cruel because he was trying to fix his wrongdoings, but, the collision of his wrongdoing and Jimmy's wrongdoing comes together and ends up being his undoing, he never warranted such escalation, and it's shocking because at that point he's tried to concede and extend an olive branch, more than most others in the series has.
The other thing to keep in mind about Chuck is that he isn't watching BCS. He doesn't see the extent of Jimmy's hard work, or struggles, or his moments of morality. It isn't much different from how Jimmy never saw a moment of Howard's marriage troubles, and never acknowledged any of his attempts to make things right. Both are a case of internal issues forming the impression of other people's actions.
I always felt like Jimmy was being judgemental with Howard the same way Chuck was with Jimmy, and he felt like it as the only way he could get back at Chuck, which is why Howard going mask off, and totally honest is such a mic drop, but Chuck's calling card was dishonesty. Chuck is a deeply dishonest person.
I would love to see a scene where Chuck gets to meet James McGill, the changed man doing 20+ years in prison at the end of BCS, and they have a talk. Chuck was capable of loving his brother after all, at least once upon a time.
Chuck celebrated Jimmy's passing the bar and he respected Jimmy's mail room work. Jimmy easily could have printed a fake diploma and practiced law without a license. It seemed like Chuck had respect for Jimmy when he was not conning anyone. Chuck had more respect for Jimmy's mail room work than for any of the law work he did.
@@cbushin Yes, but that's because he wanted to keep Jimmy in his place. Chuck makes it very clear that his opinion on Jimmy was formed in their childhood and he will never accept Jimmy in the legal world. He goes to extreme lengths to sabotage Jimmy's legal career and even shows himself to be just as much of a con man when he fakes having a break down to trick Jimmy into confessing to manipulating evidence. Jimmy does some terrible stuff but I can't remember a moment (at least by that point); where he deliberately uses someone's sincere love for him in order to screw them over.
I've always seen Chuck as the embodiment of the term "revolving door prison," the idea that even after a criminal pays their dues, the fact that they committed a crime restricts them from job opportunities and other services, making them more likely to commit more crimes out of financial desperation. That's literally what happens with Jimmy. Chuck, and people who think like him, don't realize that emphasis on punishment over rehabilitation only results in more crime and worsens society as a whole.
The term for that is self-fulfilling prophecy. People expect something, and because they know it is coming, they are pushing that outcome. And then they feel very smart about predicting it. And Chuck made that his whole personality. At any chance he kicked Saul, and then felt very superior seeing that his brother was kicked. Saul is what was left of Jimmy when Chuck chewed him up and spit him out.
@@alexandrebeaudry8377 Well, the important element of this is that the person has actually changed. In the case of prison, we maybe unfairly look at a person who has been convicted of a crime and not allow them the opportunity to gain a better life because of their transgressions, perhaps reinforcing that behaviour. With cancel culture, the person in question often still has a platform and has an opportunity to apologize and demonstrate that they regret their prior actions. This was partially the case with James Gunn. He made some very awful jokes several years ago, got fired, but because he had demonstrated that he was a changed and better person (the message of the Guardians' films), he was rehired through fervent fan action. There are some instances where the act of the canceled is so egregious that they may never return. But honestly, if people show that they are remorseful for their fuck-ups, given enough time, they likely can be forgiven.
@@alexandrebeaudry8377 a lot of people who cry about "cancel culture" bitch about it on huge platforms where millions of people will listen to them anyway. examples: J.K. Rowling, billionaire woman who keeps getting hired and paid billions in loyalties by Warner Bros., Joe Rogan and Dave Chapelle, "cancelled" comedians who can just show up on stage and whine about it for a full blown Netflix special that will get advertised and sold to millions of people. And there is also the case of washed up celebrities who lost their appeal and nobody actually even likes anymore, like Gina Carano and Jerry Seinfeld releasing horrible movies their conservative audiences didn't bother to watch, but stir up this culture wars bs to stay relevant
@@alexandrebeaudry8377comparing cancel culture to the criminal justice system is moronic. How many prisoners go to jail and then get paid millions to talk on a stage about the time they went to jail?
Chuck: The law is sacred! Also Chuck: Steals personal property, lies under oath, commits fraud by omission and burns his house down without the proper permit.
@Digidragon55 Under the law of owner ship it's call the Citadelle complex: Line 47: If going crazy one must ask for permission by a permit deliver by a city before setting fire to an house or a trojan horse.
Chuck represents what the law as establishment actually is. At BEST the law is impartial and just, but it’s just as often petty and cruel (like Chuck). And also, he feels kinda like Jimmy’s parole officer - allegedly he wants to help Jimmy, but he keeps Jimmy so under his thumb that he can’t meaningfully advance or become a better person.
Chuck claimed to uphold the law because it is impartial, and yet took advantage of the law in all the ways that it isn't impartial to impede Jimmy. If impartiality were truly something Chuck cared about, he would let Jimmy achieve whatever aspirations he could get, as he would any other person. Seeing Jimmy as immoral shouldn't change that if that were the case. In short, Chuck is a good example of why law isn't morality. It used to be lawful to own slaves, and unlawful for women to vote. Laws can be wrong, and Jimmy understood that better than anyone.
@@LCCWPresents Exactly. It's almost like the law's purpose is to maintain an ecosystem in which the wealthy are insulated from the effects of their greed, vanity or incompetence.
5:10 It doesn't excuse what Jimmy did but Chuck's partly responsible for him becoming Saul. He was jealous of the attention their parents gave Jimmy and that Jimmy was more sociable than him to the point he stopped Jimmy's attempts to move on from his scammer past and become a lawyer the right way leading him to think he had to go back to his old ways to get ahead.
@@Reeves01 because he was. Jimmy became a menace to society. Chuck's problem though was that he didn't open his heart enough to let Jimmy in. Maybe that would have been enough to change his ways.
@@bluebutterfly5062 This means that Chuck wasn't right, Jimmy could and tried to change, but Chuck literally did everything he could to stop it, because he believed that Jimmy couldn't change.
Chuck might have been right, but… he sure didn’t help lol. One of the worst things you can do to someone is teach them that both success and failure are punished and trying doesn’t matter.
To be fair, while Chuck was 100% wrong with his treatment of Jimmy, it's foolish to place all blame of him. Part of me blames the parents for clearly seeing Jimmy as their favorite, that they believe that he can do no wrong, even when he does get into trouble, they always get him out of it. Chuck on the other hand played by the rules to make a decent future for himself and for the family, but despite all of his sacrifices, the parents still were all over Jimmy, more than him. Therefore, I can't blame him for why he became what he became.
I always thought his mom calling for Jimmy was because she would have liked to see both of her sons if possible before dying, not that she didn't want to see Chuck
Never understood how so many people missed this obviously correct interperitation. Chuck was crazy for taking that personally. Why would she call for Chuck? He is ALREADY THERE!
Maybe or maybe not. To me, while most parents would want their children to be together, it is questionable, when one or both parents are showing more attention or approval of one child more than another.
I actually never thought of it that way, honestly for me it read as if their mother was being delirant at that point and that she didn't really notice Chuck was there, but I like this interpretation too
As an older brother I was always so moved by this story, because chuck is defiantly flawed and selfish, but he's much more of a common relatable villain than some comic book super villain - I don't think he's in the right, but he defiantly has a case, and he's vices feel very understandable and relatable.
Exactly. I don't think some of his actions (blocking Jimmy from HMM) were at all justified, but completely understandable. I can imagine that resentment of being the responsible older brother who cleans up the mess of his younger brother who would hurt his own family, only to watch him be more liked and popular.
Defending the law is only moral if the laws are moral. Walt makes this point to Hank about alcohol was once outlawed. By making the law so complicated, access to the law is denied to most people who have to go hire lawyers in legal matters, Lawyers can be disbarred if they challenge the corrupt legal system.
I have this issue with people all the time. Some people equate legality and illegality with "right" and "wrong". There is overlap, but they are definitely not one and the same. It's sad that our system is so corrupt and complicated that we need lawyers at all. The law should be simple and clear, and it should aim to protect the weak from the strong. Your ability to defend yourself (or to prosecute someone else) shouldn't have anything to do with how much money you can throw around.
@@pvanukoff This is a very new age, liberal way of thinking. The law is not here to protect "the weak from the strong", but to curate and sometimes even enforce behaviors integral to civilization. If an action is 'moral' in a vacuum, but would end in the dissolving of society, it should be illegal. People like you like to build your popsicle stick bridges with loooots of superstructure, but no substructure. It is the substructure that counts, not the superstructure. In our case, the ability to continue enforcing the law, and have it be enforceable in the first place, trumps the 'morality' of it.
@@shoopoop21 it's only like that because current society is immoral and cruel, and from this comment it seems like you are as well, every evil empire was propped up by the " dissolving of society" Chuck was just a bad person using laws that were made by other bad people
@@shoopoop21 This is an outdated, inbred way of thinking. The law is not here to uphold civilization, because not every civilization is worth upholding.
So glad people are still making BCS content. Chuck is such an incredible case study of how all-encompassing and deluding our beliefs of the world can be, and how we see evidence for them everywhere. One of the best characters ever.
Agreed, this series will be the gift that keeps on giving after we're gone, I think. Watching it reminded me, painfully, of how painfully unique and poignant it feels to be "backstabbed" by family "for a good reason".
Ironically, Chuck’s statement of “do good work and the clients will come” is exactly what lead Jimmy/Saul to success, just not in the way he intended. He ended up going great work for his clients. He cheated, bent rules and broke laws, and he gained more and more clients for his services. One of my favorite scenes in the later seasons was when one of his new clients came to the nail salon and asked if he was “Salamamca’s Guy.” By being a lawyer for the “bad guys”, be attracted more business than he could have dreamed.
Say what you want about Chuck, but his dynamic with Jimmy is the most interesting and compellingly written sibling dynamic I’ve ever seen in a TV show.
When I rewatch early seasons of BCS, I'm struck by how much Jimmy lives down to other people's worst expectations of him. He becomes the kind of lawyer that guilty people hire because that's what people tell him he is, and I don't think anyone did more than Chuck to damage Jimmy's self-image.
I think Jimmy is just extremely easy to influence, with Chuck's guidance he would probably never have gone back to his old ways, demonstrated by the fact he spent years working in the copy room whilst going to law school and apparently had no slip-ups the whole time because he thought his brother was looking out for him and that by doing good work he'd be rewarded, but instead Chuck screwed him out of his reward for good behaviour and set him back on the bad path.
@@lcg8220 Nah, he did have "slipups" like running a little gambling ring in the office. Nothing hideously wrong of course, but its Slippin Jimmy at work. Chuck designed his "guidance" so that Jimmy would be in a dead end no matter what he did. Without it we couldve really seen a Jimmy that succeeded at an honest life. Kim and Howard couldve been way better influences than Chuck ever was, but Chuck didnt even let that happen and made it his full-time job to keep a lid on the disaster he saw in Jimmy. Yes, Kim. The same one who got off on the high of scamming people later on. And yes, Howard, too, if it werent for Chuck Howard would have actually hired Jimmy.
Sure, other people did influence him and tore him down, but he was a scammer throughout his whole life and loves pulling off schemes so I think it’s partly his nature
@@builder396 Honestly, I bet Jimmy did the gambling ring because people were board and he wanted to give them something fun to do. Like Chuck said, he does the wrong things for reasons that sound Noble
Chuck was not just jealous of Jimmy, he was filled with envy. I believe he helped Jimmy, because it would keep him where he wanted him. He was so envious because Jimmy found it easy to excel at things he had to work hard for. He actually hated Jimmy
And it also shows how little Chuck valued his own skills accomplishments deep down, cause they weren’t as instantly seen and valued as Jimmy’s. Idk if he ever realized how much Jimmy looked up to him, which is what first motivated him to become a lawyer.
@@Delta_Aves I wonder if he views Jimmy taking care of him day-in day-out, getting papers, lamps, ice, etc. as some kind of scheme to win his trust, or if he feels entitled because of all the trouble Jimmy caused in his youth.
In certain ways, Chuck wasn’t too different from Walter. Just like Walter couldn’t abide Gale getting credit for being Heisenberg, Chuck could never accept Jimmy as a fellow lawyer. Both were ultimately done in by their egos.
@@PrimmsHoodCinema He felt it, but didn't _know_ it. That's the problem. You might as well tell people whether their lives are worth living. It is true that Jimmy fell down the path Chuck feared, but it was a self fulfilling prophecy. Jimmy wasn't even able to advertise with his name without feeling like a stain on the earth, and while you can say that's no excuse, it is why.
It is insane that Chuck blames Jimmy solely for 14 THOUSAND dollars being missing just cuz he saw Jimmy take money out of the register a couple times. its clearly way more than just him taking a bit here and there
Chuck is 16 years older then Jimmy. Chuck was born in 1944, Jimmy was born in 1960. Chuck accused Jimmy when Chuck was in college, Chuck graduated highschool at age 14 , Chuck went on to graduate from 2 colleges so lets assume Chuck is 22, that makes Jimmy SIX YEARS OLD when Chuck accuses him, so he didn't even know Jimmy, was jealous of a literal baby getting more attention then him, then blamed an at most 6 year old for stealing 10 grand, it literally makes no sense
@@KobeLoverTatumI've always been confused about the age difference because in the podcast is said that Chuck is 14 in Lantern's flashback, but in Winner it's show that he was born in 1944. The timeline doesn't make sense if is true that Chuck was only 14 in that scene. Plus, like you said, an adult being jealous of a literal baby is insane. (To be honest, I don't take the information about the age difference being 16 seriously because I think the difference was supposed to be smaller, makes much more sense that way. I think they messed up the timeline without realizing. It's not the first time they've done that. I mean... look at Kaylee)
Yeah, we see Jimmy nab like $8 in the one flashback. If we assume he took similar amounts each time, he would've needed to steal 1450 times for it to reach $14k EDIT: forgot a zero lol
Don't know if it was the same for anyone else, but the nothingness I felt with Chucks death was something I had never felt before about a character I spent so much time with. It wasn't an indifferent feeling either, like I didn't care about the character. It was a weird mix of pity and despise how far he was willing to go out of his way to keep his brother down. Jimmy wasn't flawless, but I think he truly meant the best in most of his actions to that point.
@sauce1232 The feeling of nothingness I'm talking about was all about his death. I would say him going from a sympathetic supporting character, to full blown antagonist over things that seemed so petty is probably why. It wasn't even in a "I hate this person" kinda way, I was just constantly thinking "just let it go". The fact that his ego and jealousy wouldn't allow Jimmy to be his equal in the same field as him, simply because of a few mistakes in the past. Especially when all Jimmy really wanted was to make his brother proud, is pretty gut wrenching. The slow unveiling that he was the one behind everything that set Howard up for us to hate from the beginning, is the inflection point of how drastically different we feel about those characters deaths.
I really like your take that Chuck and Jimmy were on two sides of every trial. With Jimmy, I think the best way to explain it is he thinks that the law is meant to help give everyone another chance, chances he himself has always thrown away. Chuck, after his experiences with Jimmy and their father, can’t see the law the same way, he sees it as a way to bring justice to people who never seem to get it, like Jimmy. Of course this would be ignoring all the people Chuck has hurt himself, but self-reflection is like holy water for the McGill brothers.
Another way of looking at the scene by their mothers deathbed. It is entirely possible that Jimmy wasn't her favorite but that she simply wanted them both there and was just asking chuck where he was, severely disabled by her impending death. Of course we don't know their entire backstory, but I don't think that Jimmy was really ever the "favorite" child.
“The favorite child” can have different interpretations depending on the child’s POV. In BB, Jesse’s parents clearly favor his little brother Jake, since he’s not a junkie, but Jake thinks Jesse is the favorite cause they talk about him more, albeit negatively.
Looking at at the finale, it's safe to say that the flashback of Chuck and Jimmy together was actually Jimmy's time travel moment. Considering how this was after their mother past, and before Chuck was placing the steps to make sure Jimmy wasn't a part of his company, had the two had that moment to talk, maybe things would have gone down differently. Maybe the fighting an arguing would all happen here. The two see each other for their flaws and realize that despite not being able to understand each other, they could have tried to rewrite a few wrongs before, it's too late.
I’ve also seen someone say that in that scene, Jimmy at the end says he will get some newspaper for Chuck tomorrow, and in the first episode of first season, he brings that newspaper to Chuck. So series could have started the following day of that scene, marking the beginning of all that would follow
Rather than defense vs prosecution, I think they track way more to spirit of the law vs letter of the law, at least in earlier seasons. Chuck follows the letter of the law meticulously, so is in theory the "good" guy, but often does it for bad reasons. Jimmy often plays fast and loose with what the law permits and with the rules of decorum and taste, but it's in service of helping someone who needs it (including himself), at least until he starts getting involved in organised crime.
There's a lot to say about this character and his dynamic as a whole with Jimmy. One thing that went unmentioned in the video is that Chuck not only deliberately used Ernie to set a trap for Jimmy, but also then FIRED him for doing something that he was set up to do in the first place by his employer. Setting this aside, there's also the fact that Chuck was dragging around an office mailroom employee of theirs at late hours of the night, not only for personal matters of his with the whole grocery shopping and all, but then for his own personal vendetta/investigation into his brother, there's certainly some iffy legality on worker rights there Im pretty sure which Chuck was wholly willing to overlook, not to mention that its completely morally reprehensible. More often than not, the law was a tool/weapon for Chuck to wave around to keep Jimmy down and to feel superior to others, that doesnt mean he probably had the best interest of other people in mind often times both at work or outside of it, but the reality is that Chuck is not all that different from his brother, even on moral flexibility, its just his red line was strictly by what society and/or law decides is illegal.
I truly believe that if Chuck had supported Jimmy being a lawyer, Jimmy would’ve turned out better. He’d still cut corners, but in a more harmless way.
9:11 I always interpret this as their mother was still worried about Jimmy in her final moment because Jimmy was always getting into trouble; IMO it’s not like she didn’t love Chuck or prefer to have Jimmy by her side rather than Chuck but instead her at that point was literally just a moment away from death, she was pretty “out of it” and just couldn’t comprehend Chuck calling out to her
I've also interpreted it as wanting Jimmy to be there with her AND Chuck. Like, if it were reversed, she would have called out for Chuck if he had left. I actually like your interpretation best.
Ultimately, as much as it's fun to theorize about (and I've read at least 2 interpretations of it I had never considered before that are quite good in this comments section, including yours), it doesn't even matter why their mother called Jimmy's name: the fact that she had Jimmy on her mind in her final moments, even as Chuck was the one right there with her, was what set Chuck off.
Everyone liked jimmy. Sure he wasnt there sso she might call out but really she cares more about him its obvious. His parents never saw jimmy in the same negative light as his brother does due to his own bias
I know a lot of people prefer the cartel stuff during the second half of the series. I love that stuff a lot too but the complex relationship and the constant battle between Chuck and Jimmy is some of the most compelling and complex storytelling I’ve seen to date. The first half of BCS has a special place in my heart.
To me everything about BCS was as close to perfection as a show can get. The acting was phenomenal, the storytelling and cinematography was unmatched. I’ve never been enthralled into a show like I was with BCS as it just had layers upon layers.
That was excellent, really great analysis of a brilliant character. It’s a shame you didn’t discuss how it all built up to his death, but I’m guessing if YT is already causing issues for the channel it’s maybe not a great idea to discuss issues like self termination… I’m so glad I stumbled upon this channel though, superb insights and a very relaxing voice.
It’s very telling that in the end, Chuck’s actions led Jimmy to become Saul Goodman. Jimmy learnt how to weaponise the law from Chuck. Chuck couldn’t get over his envy of Jimmy and hated that Jimmy in reality, was far more like Chuck than he ever wanted to admit. Chuck loved to play dirty, lying to Jimmy’s face about Howard not hiring him, entrapping Jimmy into confessing to a felony, manipulating Ernie so Jimmy would break into Chuck’s in a play to get Jimmy disbarred. Chuck just made sure his schemes were viewed as ‘lawful’ by a court. Jimmy never would have planted that battery on Chuck and coerced him into a breakdown in court, if Chuck hadn’t gone so scorched earth on his own brother to begin with. In the end, Jimmy followed Chuck’s horribly cruel advice to not have regrets and hurt everyone around him as a final screw you to the brother who’s last words to Jimmy were that he never loved him. He breaks down in that parking lot realising all Chuck left Jimmy with was $5000, and the tainted knowledge that people like Chuck would savage even their own brother to protect what’s theirs.
@@ThenadathorYou can blame Jimmy for sure, he isn’t ethical and makes a lot of mistakes, but Chucks handling of them kinda reinforce jimmy’s behavior and actions in my mind. Wouldn’t a good brother support jimmy going through everything to become a lawyer? Instead Chuck kinda spits on it bc he didn’t go to some Ivy League school. Chuck kinda takes every opportunity to shit on Jimmy despite all the good he’s done for him, only after being fed up with that does Jimmy kinda go of the deep end. Is either really correct in their actions? No. Is it far easier to relate to Jimmy in his actions and responses to Chuck? I’d say yes. Remember Chucks last words to Jimmy after they had started to slight make up after the bar hearing fiasco was “you were never that important to me” that’s insane to say especially to your brother, but also someone who looked after him for the better part of a year, out of his own pocket. Even Howard was surprised Jimmy went through the lengths he didn’t chuck day in and day out.
@@Thenadathor I do blame Jimmy for the things he did. But it’s important to acknowledge Chuck was horribly emotionally abusive to Jimmy and constantly tore down his attempts to be a legitimate lawyer. Instead of helping Jimmy to make his way through the world of law and keep on the straight and narrow, as any good brother would, he instead stabs Jimmy, again his BROTHER, in the back and lies to his face using Howard as the fall guy. Chuck wants a law that feeds his sense of self importance and ego. He wants Jimmy to be beneath him. Ultimately, Chuck teaches Jimmy the lesson that doing the right thing will get you nowhere, because he’ll always be judged the mistakes he made in the past. That Jimmy has to embrace being a crook and cutting corners, feel no remorse towards it, because people like Chuck want Jimmy beneath him. It’s that lesson that turns Jimmy into Saul. Chuck’s last conversation with Jimmy permanently changes him for the worse.
he's not even close to as bad imo. He does all the work for the sandpaper trial which supposedly would help people. Livia never does anything good the entire series.
i don't agree that chuck is more good and honest than jimmy. even at his shadiest, when directly confronted with the harm caused to others by his actions jimmy demonstrated overt regret and repentance. a notable instance is at the end of bcs. chuck, in the pursuit of his interests, was willing to ruin the lives of his closest associate and friend in howard as well as his brother. edit: refined my perspective a bit by reading some replies. i think ultimately what makes jimmy more moral is that he is shown to care about people, feel for them and want to do them right, even if not always. chuck shows this same empathy only once or twice.
I somewhat agree with the notion but STRONGLY disagree with the reasoning, Jimmy felt very little regret until the final episodes (and, I guess, when he's dealing with the elderly, but I think "feeling shitty about scamming seniors" is an INSANELY low bar for not being a complete monster). What makes Jimmy more moral, IMO, was brought up in the video: his loyalty and his personability. Jimmy liked people, and if he was close with them, was always willing to let other people share in the spoils of his con artistry. Meanwhile, Chuck was never against "rising tides lift all ships", but bailing out his brother is the only really altruistic/generous thing I can remember him doing. It's not necessarily that "Jimmy is generous and Chuck is selfish", but Jimmy thinks a LOT more about other people, and what he can do for them (even if it's to also benefit himself), than Chuck does, even in his worst years with Walt and Jesse.
@@MilkyWayGrump you know, fair point i see what you mean. ultimately what makes jimmy more moral is that he is shown to care about people, feel for them and want to do them right, even if not always. chuck shows this same empathy only once or twice.
@AC57001 I think Jimmy definitely had people he just wanted to eat shit (poor Howard) but he gravitated far more towards personability and working with people than his brother ever did. I don't care how much he benefitted from it since it was one of his hired goons, no one who doesn't care about people would *ever* go to the lengths Jimmy did to get Huell off the hook.
Considering how much Chuck considered the law sacred, I have to wonder what his opinions on things like the Holocaust. Extremist example I know, but the point stands in that no matter what country, injustices will abound. The US literally left Britain because they didn't agree with the application of law. Meaning the country Chuck practices law in is founded by outlaws. This isn't saying that there should be no law at all (far from it) but rather to simply point out the absurdity and folly of calling such a flawed institution sacred.
@9:39 S**t I never considered this angle.. the tiniest possibility that Chuck be sparing his brother's feelings on the passing of their mother. Then the "I never really cared much about you" talk takes a whole different dimension, as does Jimmy's reaction to Chuck's self-immolation.
Jimmy is “evil” because he did illegal stuffs. However, Chuck is certainly not “good”. Despite being right about Jimmy, Chuck is a kind of person who is in an executive position that represents the establishment who masterfully uses the law to screw over someone he doesn’t like (similar to how big corporations screwing over their own employees within the realm of law or politicians using “legal means” to screw over their political opponents. This will be even worse in dictatorial regime). If we think about it, Chuck is a much better lawyer and schemer than Jimmy because while Jimmy had to do illegal stuffs to get results, Chuck can just hurt people using legal means. You don’t have to be a genius to pull off what Jimmy did but you need to be a mastermind to do what Chuck is capable of. People only consider Chuck as a good guy because he’s legal but the law itself leaves so many room for the establishment to exploit marginalized people in the first place. Chuck might not be monstrous like Walter White or Tony Soprano but he’s akin to someone like Logan Roy. Also, RIP Howard. He deserves so much better than these two brothers (and Kim).
I had just been binging all of your BCS/BB videos over the last couple of days, and then you drop this banger out of the blue. Your content is always worth watching, even if I don't know/watch the film or series you're diving into. Thank you!
Always love your videos, they're the most well written, analytical deep dives I've seen on UA-cam. Keep it up man, cause you're seriously amazing at this! 😄
Chuck can't accept that within the law and human behavior, there arises contradictions to our lawful ethical practices in issues such as mental illness, family, and systemic oppression. We have to reach people on an emotional level because emotions help us to survive and the law is an emotionally driven thing. Crime and punishment creates the metric and good and evil, but we're not a species of good and evil, just instincts.
It's this idea that also makes me scoff at people who try to live "purely logical" lives; any decision you will ever make, and any calculation you will ever derive, will always have been done because you had an emotional drive/want/need that led you to apply that logic, even if that emotional aspect is as simple as "I don't want myself or others to die". The physical world exists, and things can undeniably be fact, but when push comes to shove, a decision itself cannot ever be made without some kind of emotional drive. Otherwise, we'd all just sit around, without talking or thinking, and let starvation/entropy get to us, as science *clearly* intended.
@ humans are always being affected by our messed up circumstances. It’s the empathy we discover in those messed up things that creates connection. But if these film bros don’t want that connection then they watch to talk. They don’t watch to understand
Chuck was NOT responsible for Howard's decision to put Kim in doc review. When Howard visits to celebrate Mesa Verde, Chuck is actually impressed and asks whether Kim will be "out of the doghouse" and get her position back. When Chuck talks to Kim directly, he congratulates her (genuinely), and even offers to talk to Howard to "pour a little oil over trouble waters" or something. That WAS Jimmy projecting, and not really Chuck's manipulation. Like Kim pointed out: "that's Howard, who has an image to uphold." And he does, for the whole show.
nah that was just a show chuck put in to be the “good cop” and make howard look like the bad guy like he always did when jimmy was trying to join the firm Chuck never liked the backlash of people disliking him so he always put in the show at every opportunity while pulling howard’s puppet strings to do what he wants
Honestly, the question of Jimmy becoming evil was inevitable, or as result of how Chuck Treated him (I learn pretty far toward the latter), is irrelevant in the context of whether or not Chuck was justified. Actions are actions, regardless of the result. Funny how a lot of people who think Jimmy's "the ends justify the means" mentality made him deserving of chuck's abuse, are basically justifying said abuse as "well, the ends justify the means"
Very well done video essay on one of my favorite universes of all time. I love how most, if not all the characters in the BBU are 'human' versus caricatures of people. No one was "perfect" or "idealized" as they all had various flaws/foibles. It made the show infinitely relatable.
Thank you, JaO, for another insightful video. I hope you're not done with BCS. I'd love to see some more character arc analyses. How about Francesca? Her arc towards BB is fascinating & kinda sad.
Great traits they have. Chuck's vigorous hard work, dedication and intellect. Chuck's rigidity (which can sometimes be the best approach), adherence to moral values and pursuit of justice. Jimmy's improvisation, gift of the gab, ability to get back on his feet when life knocks him down. Jimmy's flexible world view. These two have a great set of traits and wondrous skill set. They both waste their talents and get bogged down in pettiness and self destruction. Worst of all they drag others to the pits with them.
Honestly, I think Chuck really captures the fatal, idiosyncratic flaw of human beings in a perfect way. Wanting to be right and good, all the while completely failing to realize how "wrong" being "right" was making him.
This is truly good stuff! I've enjoyed all of what I've seen from you so far, so I hope you get recognition for such good material! Thank you for sharing, and keep up the good work!!
Chuck was such a well written character. The series lost so much when he died, thank god Vince Gilligan always delivers cause we still had more interesting characters left.
@@Thenadathor I never said that Jimmy wasn't responsible for what he did. It's just that the evidence indicates Chuck could've maybe prevented Jimmy's downfall if he had been more forgiving, but instead, by being so hard on him, Chuck pushed Jimmy even harder toward the dark side. But, to your point, we don't know for sure. Jimmy might've fallen either way, and ultimately he is responsible for his own decisions and actions.
Chuck is like a parent who already determined the childs future the day they were born but has the best intentions in mind. Jimmy is like that parent who makes a conference with the teacher to ask why they give their child a bad grade.
The basic difference between the brothers is Jimmy will use every dirty trick to benefit himself while Chuck will do every legal trick to punish others.
Also, I have to immediately take issue with this statement: "If you do good and to act in accordance with the public's well-being, then good things will happen to you." That is absolutely NOT Chuck's life philosophy. Chuck's outlook on life is that you should "do good and act in accordance with the public's well being" because it's what you're supposed to do...*not* that you do it so good things will happen to you. For Chuck, the law being followed IS the "good thing" and the right way to live life. For him, doing so has zero to do with good things happening to you as a result. The rest of that statement was accurate, but that first part was off-base.
I've always wondered why someone as intelligent as Chuck couldn't figure out his dad was giving away money but it goes to show how much he hated his brother.
He very possibly suspected it, but he idolized the man and refused to accept that. Also besides that, Chucks motivation for doing what he does to Jimmy and seeing him the way he does is not just out of blaming Jimmy for what happened to their father, but out of pure jealousy and resentment towards him, he was the hard working, respectable and accomplished older brother and yet his little brother got coddled and protected by his parents, liked by his peers and everyone around him despite his clear flaws.
Chuck is a classic representation of lawful evil. Evil is maybe a harsh judgment, Lawful Asshole is maybe more fair, but yeah. Aligning with the law doesn't make you a good person.
Evil is more behavioral than philosophical. His behavior profits himself, while casting judgment on typically the less fortunate, helping lock them in cages where slave labor ensues for profit. The machine creates the problems that it pretends to try to correct. Chuck is a useful idiot for the machine.
I think “evil” isn’t too much of a stretch. He’s not a demon, his is a purely human evil.
But it’s the evil of someone who will excuse their own actions, no matter how vile, while placing every sin at the foot of someone else.
Chuck is using Jimmy as his scapegoat, almost literally. He places all the sins he feels the most shame about on Jimmy’s shoulders.
Agreed, the Lawful Arsehole alignment summarises Chuck nicely because he's only evil to certain individuals (mostly Jimmy, but many others also) and he does morally reprehensible white-collar things to them to control their behaviour, rather than beat them up or murder them. Still sociopathic behaviour, even if limited to whomever Chuck judges as "bad". Chuck thinks he's morally righteous though, so in an RPG he would probably be Lawful Good (with Evil-Lite tendencies). I'd abbreviate that to LA as per your idea..
Lawful impure
Maybe not evil, but definitely apathetic. Or perhaps Merciless
It was hard for Chuck to give Jimmy respect and sympathy because that would require humility and an admission that he is not always right.
Good point. The idea jimmy is better at anything than him doesn’t compute.
That’s the point of Walter’s flashback, to be fair.
Bob Odenkirk himself even said that despite being a bad person, Jimmy’s psyche was so damaged that he’s like an abuse victim who keeps dating abusive boyfriends. In case of Jimmy, he has an affinity with sick abusive authoritative figures. First it was Chuck. Then it was Walter. Walter had both the ego and arrogance of Chuck and the murderous psychotic tendencies of Lalo.
I think evil is an adequate word to be honest. Evil to me doesn't have to be murder and moustache twirling. Letting resentment win, for example, is an act of evil, and Chuck was just as resentful as Walt.
@@asytippyy352 Did you reply the wrong comment?
@@asytippyy352 IMPO the line to be crossed for "evil" is knowingly harming someone, whether physically, emotionally or otherwise, without a reasonable, non-selfish "greater good". Chuck only BARELY misses the criteria because of that last point, but I could easily argue either side of whether he hurt Jimmy for the ACTUAL greater good or if it's just rationalizing on Chuck's part.
The end of the show gives us the true winner of this contest: Jimmy despite all his flaws and temptations to keep living as Saul decided to face his punishment, Chuck wasn’t strong enough to do so… It wasn’t that Jimmy became a hero all of sudden, but in contrast to Chuck he did let the Law and Society see, judge, and punish him for what he was, so we may say in the very end he became what Chuck pretended to be.
Howard on the other hand, really was a good guy that became collateral damage for no real fault of his own..
I love this analysis. I read a post about how "Breaking Bad is about loving life at the expense of the people around you, and Better Call Saul is about loving the people around you at the expense of your life," and I think there's no better summation of both shows.
The best part is that Jimmy had to admit to his regrets to fully redeem himself even when they weren't crimes (and in fact were just Jimmy reporting on Chuck's crimes to the insurance company). That alone is the ultimate middle finger to Chuck's entire philosophy.
Howard is a 'good guy'? He's a corporate suit spinning the wheels of an inherently usurious system for profit, victimizing the vulnerable animals he consumes along with 99% of the rest of 'humanity'.
No. Howard knowingly and willingly went along with chucks bs toward jimmy and did plenty of unethical things toward both kim and jimmy
@@JS-wp4gs Howard was a sycophant but after Chuck's death, does actually try and work on himself and try to bury the hatchet and do better by others.
He was basically a normal guy in a crazy world and had his problems, suffered a loss, and then coped with it quite normally and tried to step up to be better than his previous self, and offered an olive branch and tried to also help Jimmy out.
I wouldn't call him a good guy, he was a sycophant that ended up going along with wrong, but, he did mature and try to "Mend" the problems he helped with, which in this world, is kinda the most a lot of people can do, and is about as good as it gets with most BB/BCS characters.
By the time he's collateral, it feels wrong and viciously cruel because he was trying to fix his wrongdoings, but, the collision of his wrongdoing and Jimmy's wrongdoing comes together and ends up being his undoing, he never warranted such escalation, and it's shocking because at that point he's tried to concede and extend an olive branch, more than most others in the series has.
The other thing to keep in mind about Chuck is that he isn't watching BCS. He doesn't see the extent of Jimmy's hard work, or struggles, or his moments of morality. It isn't much different from how Jimmy never saw a moment of Howard's marriage troubles, and never acknowledged any of his attempts to make things right. Both are a case of internal issues forming the impression of other people's actions.
I always felt like Jimmy was being judgemental with Howard the same way Chuck was with Jimmy, and he felt like it as the only way he could get back at Chuck, which is why Howard going mask off, and totally honest is such a mic drop, but Chuck's calling card was dishonesty. Chuck is a deeply dishonest person.
But Chuck was the direct recipient of Jimmy’s steady dedication to taking care of him, something Chuck rarely even acknowledges Jimmy’s large heart.
I would love to see a scene where Chuck gets to meet James McGill, the changed man doing 20+ years in prison at the end of BCS, and they have a talk. Chuck was capable of loving his brother after all, at least once upon a time.
Chuck celebrated Jimmy's passing the bar and he respected Jimmy's mail room work. Jimmy easily could have printed a fake diploma and practiced law without a license. It seemed like Chuck had respect for Jimmy when he was not conning anyone. Chuck had more respect for Jimmy's mail room work than for any of the law work he did.
@@cbushin Yes, but that's because he wanted to keep Jimmy in his place. Chuck makes it very clear that his opinion on Jimmy was formed in their childhood and he will never accept Jimmy in the legal world. He goes to extreme lengths to sabotage Jimmy's legal career and even shows himself to be just as much of a con man when he fakes having a break down to trick Jimmy into confessing to manipulating evidence. Jimmy does some terrible stuff but I can't remember a moment (at least by that point); where he deliberately uses someone's sincere love for him in order to screw them over.
I've always seen Chuck as the embodiment of the term "revolving door prison," the idea that even after a criminal pays their dues, the fact that they committed a crime restricts them from job opportunities and other services, making them more likely to commit more crimes out of financial desperation. That's literally what happens with Jimmy. Chuck, and people who think like him, don't realize that emphasis on punishment over rehabilitation only results in more crime and worsens society as a whole.
We see it more and more in society. The cancel culture allow condamn without any possibilities for redemption.
The term for that is self-fulfilling prophecy. People expect something, and because they know it is coming, they are pushing that outcome. And then they feel very smart about predicting it. And Chuck made that his whole personality. At any chance he kicked Saul, and then felt very superior seeing that his brother was kicked.
Saul is what was left of Jimmy when Chuck chewed him up and spit him out.
@@alexandrebeaudry8377 Well, the important element of this is that the person has actually changed. In the case of prison, we maybe unfairly look at a person who has been convicted of a crime and not allow them the opportunity to gain a better life because of their transgressions, perhaps reinforcing that behaviour.
With cancel culture, the person in question often still has a platform and has an opportunity to apologize and demonstrate that they regret their prior actions. This was partially the case with James Gunn. He made some very awful jokes several years ago, got fired, but because he had demonstrated that he was a changed and better person (the message of the Guardians' films), he was rehired through fervent fan action.
There are some instances where the act of the canceled is so egregious that they may never return. But honestly, if people show that they are remorseful for their fuck-ups, given enough time, they likely can be forgiven.
@@alexandrebeaudry8377 a lot of people who cry about "cancel culture" bitch about it on huge platforms where millions of people will listen to them anyway. examples: J.K. Rowling, billionaire woman who keeps getting hired and paid billions in loyalties by Warner Bros., Joe Rogan and Dave Chapelle, "cancelled" comedians who can just show up on stage and whine about it for a full blown Netflix special that will get advertised and sold to millions of people. And there is also the case of washed up celebrities who lost their appeal and nobody actually even likes anymore, like Gina Carano and Jerry Seinfeld releasing horrible movies their conservative audiences didn't bother to watch, but stir up this culture wars bs to stay relevant
@@alexandrebeaudry8377comparing cancel culture to the criminal justice system is moronic. How many prisoners go to jail and then get paid millions to talk on a stage about the time they went to jail?
Chuck: The law is sacred!
Also Chuck: Steals personal property, lies under oath, commits fraud by omission and burns his house down without the proper permit.
Since, when does he need a permit to burn down his own house? He legally owns it!
@Digidragon55 Under the law of owner ship it's call the Citadelle complex: Line 47: If going crazy one must ask for permission by a permit deliver by a city before setting fire to an house or a trojan horse.
@@Digidragon55still an act of arson
I forget, when does Chuck lie under oath?
@@Digidragon55 Burning your own house down is still arson. Fires spread very easily.
Chuck represents what the law as establishment actually is. At BEST the law is impartial and just, but it’s just as often petty and cruel (like Chuck). And also, he feels kinda like Jimmy’s parole officer - allegedly he wants to help Jimmy, but he keeps Jimmy so under his thumb that he can’t meaningfully advance or become a better person.
He was ok with jimmy working in the mailroom, but the moment jimmy passed the bar was the point of no return for chuck.
Chuck claimed to uphold the law because it is impartial, and yet took advantage of the law in all the ways that it isn't impartial to impede Jimmy. If impartiality were truly something Chuck cared about, he would let Jimmy achieve whatever aspirations he could get, as he would any other person. Seeing Jimmy as immoral shouldn't change that if that were the case.
In short, Chuck is a good example of why law isn't morality. It used to be lawful to own slaves, and unlawful for women to vote. Laws can be wrong, and Jimmy understood that better than anyone.
@@LCCWPresents A thought occurs now lol. Chuck sees the law as inherently good... but he also sees himself _as_ the law.
@@LCCWPresents Exactly. It's almost like the law's purpose is to maintain an ecosystem in which the wealthy are insulated from the effects of their greed, vanity or incompetence.
5:10 It doesn't excuse what Jimmy did but Chuck's partly responsible for him becoming Saul. He was jealous of the attention their parents gave Jimmy and that Jimmy was more sociable than him to the point he stopped Jimmy's attempts to move on from his scammer past and become a lawyer the right way leading him to think he had to go back to his old ways to get ahead.
This is why I never get why a lot of people say “Chuck was always right about Jimmy”
@@Reeves01 because he was. Jimmy became a menace to society. Chuck's problem though was that he didn't open his heart enough to let Jimmy in. Maybe that would have been enough to change his ways.
@@bluebutterfly5062 This means that Chuck wasn't right, Jimmy could and tried to change, but Chuck literally did everything he could to stop it, because he believed that Jimmy couldn't change.
Chuck might have been right, but… he sure didn’t help lol. One of the worst things you can do to someone is teach them that both success and failure are punished and trying doesn’t matter.
To be fair, while Chuck was 100% wrong with his treatment of Jimmy, it's foolish to place all blame of him. Part of me blames the parents for clearly seeing Jimmy as their favorite, that they believe that he can do no wrong, even when he does get into trouble, they always get him out of it.
Chuck on the other hand played by the rules to make a decent future for himself and for the family, but despite all of his sacrifices, the parents still were all over Jimmy, more than him. Therefore, I can't blame him for why he became what he became.
I always thought his mom calling for Jimmy was because she would have liked to see both of her sons if possible before dying, not that she didn't want to see Chuck
Chuck takes it as her preferring jimmy. Takes everything so personally.
Thats how I saw it. She wanted to see her boy, she already saw Chuck was there. But he took it personal
Never understood how so many people missed this obviously correct interperitation. Chuck was crazy for taking that personally. Why would she call for Chuck? He is ALREADY THERE!
Maybe or maybe not. To me, while most parents would want their children to be together, it is questionable, when one or both parents are showing more attention or approval of one child more than another.
I actually never thought of it that way, honestly for me it read as if their mother was being delirant at that point and that she didn't really notice Chuck was there, but I like this interpretation too
As an older brother I was always so moved by this story, because chuck is defiantly flawed and selfish, but he's much more of a common relatable villain than some comic book super villain - I don't think he's in the right, but he defiantly has a case, and he's vices feel very understandable and relatable.
Exactly. I don't think some of his actions (blocking Jimmy from HMM) were at all justified, but completely understandable. I can imagine that resentment of being the responsible older brother who cleans up the mess of his younger brother who would hurt his own family, only to watch him be more liked and popular.
Defending the law is only moral if the laws are moral. Walt makes this point to Hank about alcohol was once outlawed. By making the law so complicated, access to the law is denied to most people who have to go hire lawyers in legal matters, Lawyers can be disbarred if they challenge the corrupt legal system.
I have this issue with people all the time. Some people equate legality and illegality with "right" and "wrong". There is overlap, but they are definitely not one and the same. It's sad that our system is so corrupt and complicated that we need lawyers at all. The law should be simple and clear, and it should aim to protect the weak from the strong. Your ability to defend yourself (or to prosecute someone else) shouldn't have anything to do with how much money you can throw around.
@@pvanukoff well said.
@@pvanukoff This is a very new age, liberal way of thinking. The law is not here to protect "the weak from the strong", but to curate and sometimes even enforce behaviors integral to civilization. If an action is 'moral' in a vacuum, but would end in the dissolving of society, it should be illegal.
People like you like to build your popsicle stick bridges with loooots of superstructure, but no substructure. It is the substructure that counts, not the superstructure. In our case, the ability to continue enforcing the law, and have it be enforceable in the first place, trumps the 'morality' of it.
@@shoopoop21 it's only like that because current society is immoral and cruel, and from this comment it seems like you are as well, every evil empire was propped up by the " dissolving of society" Chuck was just a bad person using laws that were made by other bad people
@@shoopoop21 This is an outdated, inbred way of thinking. The law is not here to uphold civilization, because not every civilization is worth upholding.
So glad people are still making BCS content. Chuck is such an incredible case study of how all-encompassing and deluding our beliefs of the world can be, and how we see evidence for them everywhere. One of the best characters ever.
Agreed, this series will be the gift that keeps on giving after we're gone, I think. Watching it reminded me, painfully, of how painfully unique and poignant it feels to be "backstabbed" by family "for a good reason".
Ironically, Chuck’s statement of “do good work and the clients will come” is exactly what lead Jimmy/Saul to success, just not in the way he intended. He ended up going great work for his clients. He cheated, bent rules and broke laws, and he gained more and more clients for his services. One of my favorite scenes in the later seasons was when one of his new clients came to the nail salon and asked if he was “Salamamca’s Guy.” By being a lawyer for the “bad guys”, be attracted more business than he could have dreamed.
Say what you want about Chuck, but his dynamic with Jimmy is the most interesting and compellingly written sibling dynamic I’ve ever seen in a TV show.
I agree, the other comparative for me is Frasier Crane and his brother Niles. Different genre but delicious dynamics
@@nedthestaffieegan3452 Love a Frasier reference
Damn roasted him on frame 0 with that title; "alleged morality"
Chuck already roasted Chuck.
Babe wake up, new just an observation on better call Saul’s brother
I cringed so hard I pulled a muscle.
@@jonbourgoin182 L take
@@jonbourgoin182yeah I’m pretty sick of seeing this as the top comment on every video for the past 2 years
Tell your imaginary gf to go back to sleep, these comments are so old and overused
Is this supposed to be funny?
When I rewatch early seasons of BCS, I'm struck by how much Jimmy lives down to other people's worst expectations of him. He becomes the kind of lawyer that guilty people hire because that's what people tell him he is, and I don't think anyone did more than Chuck to damage Jimmy's self-image.
I think Jimmy is just extremely easy to influence, with Chuck's guidance he would probably never have gone back to his old ways, demonstrated by the fact he spent years working in the copy room whilst going to law school and apparently had no slip-ups the whole time because he thought his brother was looking out for him and that by doing good work he'd be rewarded, but instead Chuck screwed him out of his reward for good behaviour and set him back on the bad path.
@@lcg8220 Nah, he did have "slipups" like running a little gambling ring in the office. Nothing hideously wrong of course, but its Slippin Jimmy at work.
Chuck designed his "guidance" so that Jimmy would be in a dead end no matter what he did. Without it we couldve really seen a Jimmy that succeeded at an honest life. Kim and Howard couldve been way better influences than Chuck ever was, but Chuck didnt even let that happen and made it his full-time job to keep a lid on the disaster he saw in Jimmy. Yes, Kim. The same one who got off on the high of scamming people later on. And yes, Howard, too, if it werent for Chuck Howard would have actually hired Jimmy.
Sure, other people did influence him and tore him down, but he was a scammer throughout his whole life and loves pulling off schemes so I think it’s partly his nature
Yes, the Pygmalion effect in effect 😅
@@builder396 Honestly, I bet Jimmy did the gambling ring because people were board and he wanted to give them something fun to do. Like Chuck said, he does the wrong things for reasons that sound Noble
Chuck was not just jealous of Jimmy, he was filled with envy. I believe he helped Jimmy, because it would keep him where he wanted him. He was so envious because Jimmy found it easy to excel at things he had to work hard for. He actually hated Jimmy
And it also shows how little Chuck valued his own skills accomplishments deep down, cause they weren’t as instantly seen and valued as Jimmy’s. Idk if he ever realized how much Jimmy looked up to him, which is what first motivated him to become a lawyer.
@@Delta_Aves I wonder if he views Jimmy taking care of him day-in day-out, getting papers, lamps, ice, etc. as some kind of scheme to win his trust, or if he feels entitled because of all the trouble Jimmy caused in his youth.
In certain ways, Chuck wasn’t too different from Walter. Just like Walter couldn’t abide Gale getting credit for being Heisenberg, Chuck could never accept Jimmy as a fellow lawyer. Both were ultimately done in by their egos.
That’s not “just like” at all. Video essay brainrot.
Nah, I feel like the ending kinda implies that Chuck was always right. He always felt Jimmy would exploit the law and turn corrupt. He was right.
How are those two things similar? lol
We going nowhere with this one 🗣️
@@PrimmsHoodCinema He felt it, but didn't _know_ it. That's the problem. You might as well tell people whether their lives are worth living. It is true that Jimmy fell down the path Chuck feared, but it was a self fulfilling prophecy. Jimmy wasn't even able to advertise with his name without feeling like a stain on the earth, and while you can say that's no excuse, it is why.
It is insane that Chuck blames Jimmy solely for 14 THOUSAND dollars being missing just cuz he saw Jimmy take money out of the register a couple times. its clearly way more than just him taking a bit here and there
Yeah, I doubt Jimmy was emptying the register into his pockets every night, which is realistically the only way you'd take that much
Chuck is 16 years older then Jimmy. Chuck was born in 1944, Jimmy was born in 1960. Chuck accused Jimmy when Chuck was in college, Chuck graduated highschool at age 14 , Chuck went on to graduate from 2 colleges so lets assume Chuck is 22, that makes Jimmy SIX YEARS OLD when Chuck accuses him, so he didn't even know Jimmy, was jealous of a literal baby getting more attention then him, then blamed an at most 6 year old for stealing 10 grand, it literally makes no sense
@@KobeLoverTatumI've always been confused about the age difference because in the podcast is said that Chuck is 14 in Lantern's flashback, but in Winner it's show that he was born in 1944. The timeline doesn't make sense if is true that Chuck was only 14 in that scene. Plus, like you said, an adult being jealous of a literal baby is insane.
(To be honest, I don't take the information about the age difference being 16 seriously because I think the difference was supposed to be smaller, makes much more sense that way. I think they messed up the timeline without realizing. It's not the first time they've done that. I mean... look at Kaylee)
Yeah, we see Jimmy nab like $8 in the one flashback. If we assume he took similar amounts each time, he would've needed to steal 1450 times for it to reach $14k
EDIT: forgot a zero lol
@@christianhowell3140 try 1750 times. 14k/8, unless I misinterpreted this.
3:55 me doing precise muscle control so that the fart comes out silently
15:26 More often than not Chuck just used the law as an excuse to try to ruin Jimmy's life out of spite.
Don't know if it was the same for anyone else, but the nothingness I felt with Chucks death was something I had never felt before about a character I spent so much time with. It wasn't an indifferent feeling either, like I didn't care about the character. It was a weird mix of pity and despise how far he was willing to go out of his way to keep his brother down. Jimmy wasn't flawless, but I think he truly meant the best in most of his actions to that point.
When you mention these feelings, is it about being sad not to see a character you enjoy anymore or solely about their death Itself?
@sauce1232 The feeling of nothingness I'm talking about was all about his death. I would say him going from a sympathetic supporting character, to full blown antagonist over things that seemed so petty is probably why. It wasn't even in a "I hate this person" kinda way, I was just constantly thinking "just let it go". The fact that his ego and jealousy wouldn't allow Jimmy to be his equal in the same field as him, simply because of a few mistakes in the past. Especially when all Jimmy really wanted was to make his brother proud, is pretty gut wrenching. The slow unveiling that he was the one behind everything that set Howard up for us to hate from the beginning, is the inflection point of how drastically different we feel about those characters deaths.
@daniekogivens5042 I never feel anything because I know they're not real. Just sometime annoying to see a character you enjoy gone.
I really like your take that Chuck and Jimmy were on two sides of every trial. With Jimmy, I think the best way to explain it is he thinks that the law is meant to help give everyone another chance, chances he himself has always thrown away. Chuck, after his experiences with Jimmy and their father, can’t see the law the same way, he sees it as a way to bring justice to people who never seem to get it, like Jimmy. Of course this would be ignoring all the people Chuck has hurt himself, but self-reflection is like holy water for the McGill brothers.
Another way of looking at the scene by their mothers deathbed. It is entirely possible that Jimmy wasn't her favorite but that she simply wanted them both there and was just asking chuck where he was, severely disabled by her impending death. Of course we don't know their entire backstory, but I don't think that Jimmy was really ever the "favorite" child.
“The favorite child” can have different interpretations depending on the child’s POV. In BB, Jesse’s parents clearly favor his little brother Jake, since he’s not a junkie, but Jake thinks Jesse is the favorite cause they talk about him more, albeit negatively.
Looking at at the finale, it's safe to say that the flashback of Chuck and Jimmy together was actually Jimmy's time travel moment. Considering how this was after their mother past, and before Chuck was placing the steps to make sure Jimmy wasn't a part of his company, had the two had that moment to talk, maybe things would have gone down differently. Maybe the fighting an arguing would all happen here. The two see each other for their flaws and realize that despite not being able to understand each other, they could have tried to rewrite a few wrongs before, it's too late.
I’ve also seen someone say that in that scene, Jimmy at the end says he will get some newspaper for Chuck tomorrow, and in the first episode of first season, he brings that newspaper to Chuck. So series could have started the following day of that scene, marking the beginning of all that would follow
Rather than defense vs prosecution, I think they track way more to spirit of the law vs letter of the law, at least in earlier seasons. Chuck follows the letter of the law meticulously, so is in theory the "good" guy, but often does it for bad reasons. Jimmy often plays fast and loose with what the law permits and with the rules of decorum and taste, but it's in service of helping someone who needs it (including himself), at least until he starts getting involved in organised crime.
This is such a basic take thats why the nnarrator didnt use it. Its literally talkeed about verbatim in the series
@@useraiaj234mp Good take nonetheless
There's a lot to say about this character and his dynamic as a whole with Jimmy. One thing that went unmentioned in the video is that Chuck not only deliberately used Ernie to set a trap for Jimmy, but also then FIRED him for doing something that he was set up to do in the first place by his employer. Setting this aside, there's also the fact that Chuck was dragging around an office mailroom employee of theirs at late hours of the night, not only for personal matters of his with the whole grocery shopping and all, but then for his own personal vendetta/investigation into his brother, there's certainly some iffy legality on worker rights there Im pretty sure which Chuck was wholly willing to overlook, not to mention that its completely morally reprehensible.
More often than not, the law was a tool/weapon for Chuck to wave around to keep Jimmy down and to feel superior to others, that doesnt mean he probably had the best interest of other people in mind often times both at work or outside of it, but the reality is that Chuck is not all that different from his brother, even on moral flexibility, its just his red line was strictly by what society and/or law decides is illegal.
chuck reminds me of hank from breaking bad, there are a lot of parallels between the two characters
I truly believe that if Chuck had supported Jimmy being a lawyer, Jimmy would’ve turned out better. He’d still cut corners, but in a more harmless way.
Love how complex all of the characters are in Better Call Saul. Great video
9:11 I always interpret this as their mother was still worried about Jimmy in her final moment because Jimmy was always getting into trouble;
IMO it’s not like she didn’t love Chuck or prefer to have Jimmy by her side rather than Chuck but instead her at that point was literally just a moment away from death, she was pretty “out of it” and just couldn’t comprehend Chuck calling out to her
I've also interpreted it as wanting Jimmy to be there with her AND Chuck. Like, if it were reversed, she would have called out for Chuck if he had left. I actually like your interpretation best.
Ultimately, as much as it's fun to theorize about (and I've read at least 2 interpretations of it I had never considered before that are quite good in this comments section, including yours), it doesn't even matter why their mother called Jimmy's name: the fact that she had Jimmy on her mind in her final moments, even as Chuck was the one right there with her, was what set Chuck off.
Everyone liked jimmy. Sure he wasnt there sso she might call out but really she cares more about him its obvious. His parents never saw jimmy in the same negative light as his brother does due to his own bias
Having an unwavering belief that someone will never change no matter what is an extremely unsettling mindset to have for a lawyer
Idk much about being a lawyer, but I imagine one of the first rules is to keep your emotions out of it.
I've been re-watching BCS and all the video essays on the characters. How great to see a surprise BCS character analysis!
I believe its not all black and white, but in general Chuck is an exceptional lawyer, a decent person, and a terribly spiteful brother.
Always a great day when just an observation makes a video about the breaking bad/better call Saul universe.
I know a lot of people prefer the cartel stuff during the second half of the series. I love that stuff a lot too but the complex relationship and the constant battle between Chuck and Jimmy is some of the most compelling and complex storytelling I’ve seen to date. The first half of BCS has a special place in my heart.
To me everything about BCS was as close to perfection as a show can get. The acting was phenomenal, the storytelling and cinematography was unmatched. I’ve never been enthralled into a show like I was with BCS as it just had layers upon layers.
I am so happy there is a new video from you about breaking bad / better call saul universe
The desperate urge to be judgemental is blinding through it's comfort.
Michael McKean's performance as Chuck is one of my all time favorites
That was excellent, really great analysis of a brilliant character. It’s a shame you didn’t discuss how it all built up to his death, but I’m guessing if YT is already causing issues for the channel it’s maybe not a great idea to discuss issues like self termination…
I’m so glad I stumbled upon this channel though, superb insights and a very relaxing voice.
It’s very telling that in the end, Chuck’s actions led Jimmy to become Saul Goodman.
Jimmy learnt how to weaponise the law from Chuck. Chuck couldn’t get over his envy of Jimmy and hated that Jimmy in reality, was far more like Chuck than he ever wanted to admit. Chuck loved to play dirty, lying to Jimmy’s face about Howard not hiring him, entrapping Jimmy into confessing to a felony, manipulating Ernie so Jimmy would break into Chuck’s in a play to get Jimmy disbarred. Chuck just made sure his schemes were viewed as ‘lawful’ by a court. Jimmy never would have planted that battery on Chuck and coerced him into a breakdown in court, if Chuck hadn’t gone so scorched earth on his own brother to begin with.
In the end, Jimmy followed Chuck’s horribly cruel advice to not have regrets and hurt everyone around him as a final screw you to the brother who’s last words to Jimmy were that he never loved him. He breaks down in that parking lot realising all Chuck left Jimmy with was $5000, and the tainted knowledge that people like Chuck would savage even their own brother to protect what’s theirs.
Why cant you blame jimmy
@@ThenadathorYou can blame Jimmy for sure, he isn’t ethical and makes a lot of mistakes, but Chucks handling of them kinda reinforce jimmy’s behavior and actions in my mind. Wouldn’t a good brother support jimmy going through everything to become a lawyer? Instead Chuck kinda spits on it bc he didn’t go to some Ivy League school. Chuck kinda takes every opportunity to shit on Jimmy despite all the good he’s done for him, only after being fed up with that does Jimmy kinda go of the deep end. Is either really correct in their actions? No. Is it far easier to relate to Jimmy in his actions and responses to Chuck? I’d say yes. Remember Chucks last words to Jimmy after they had started to slight make up after the bar hearing fiasco was “you were never that important to me” that’s insane to say especially to your brother, but also someone who looked after him for the better part of a year, out of his own pocket. Even Howard was surprised Jimmy went through the lengths he didn’t chuck day in and day out.
Jimmy isn’t entitled to Chuck’s money
@@Thenadathor I do blame Jimmy for the things he did. But it’s important to acknowledge Chuck was horribly emotionally abusive to Jimmy and constantly tore down his attempts to be a legitimate lawyer. Instead of helping Jimmy to make his way through the world of law and keep on the straight and narrow, as any good brother would, he instead stabs Jimmy, again his BROTHER, in the back and lies to his face using Howard as the fall guy. Chuck wants a law that feeds his sense of self importance and ego. He wants Jimmy to be beneath him. Ultimately, Chuck teaches Jimmy the lesson that doing the right thing will get you nowhere, because he’ll always be judged the mistakes he made in the past. That Jimmy has to embrace being a crook and cutting corners, feel no remorse towards it, because people like Chuck want Jimmy beneath him. It’s that lesson that turns Jimmy into Saul. Chuck’s last conversation with Jimmy permanently changes him for the worse.
I've been wanting a video like this for so long on Chuck. Thank you!
Chuck is like The Livia soprano character of Better call Saul
he's not even close to as bad imo. He does all the work for the sandpaper trial which supposedly would help people. Livia never does anything good the entire series.
No way
Great vid. Got me thinking about a few things I hadn't picked up on during my initial viewing of the show
i don't agree that chuck is more good and honest than jimmy. even at his shadiest, when directly confronted with the harm caused to others by his actions jimmy demonstrated overt regret and repentance. a notable instance is at the end of bcs.
chuck, in the pursuit of his interests, was willing to ruin the lives of his closest associate and friend in howard as well as his brother.
edit: refined my perspective a bit by reading some replies. i think ultimately what makes jimmy more moral is that he is shown to care about people, feel for them and want to do them right, even if not always. chuck shows this same empathy only once or twice.
Chuck is definitely morally better than James "friend of the cartel" McGill lol.
Showing remorse doesn't automatically redeem you of your actions.
I somewhat agree with the notion but STRONGLY disagree with the reasoning, Jimmy felt very little regret until the final episodes (and, I guess, when he's dealing with the elderly, but I think "feeling shitty about scamming seniors" is an INSANELY low bar for not being a complete monster).
What makes Jimmy more moral, IMO, was brought up in the video: his loyalty and his personability. Jimmy liked people, and if he was close with them, was always willing to let other people share in the spoils of his con artistry. Meanwhile, Chuck was never against "rising tides lift all ships", but bailing out his brother is the only really altruistic/generous thing I can remember him doing. It's not necessarily that "Jimmy is generous and Chuck is selfish", but Jimmy thinks a LOT more about other people, and what he can do for them (even if it's to also benefit himself), than Chuck does, even in his worst years with Walt and Jesse.
@@MilkyWayGrump you know, fair point i see what you mean. ultimately what makes jimmy more moral is that he is shown to care about people, feel for them and want to do them right, even if not always. chuck shows this same empathy only once or twice.
@AC57001 I think Jimmy definitely had people he just wanted to eat shit (poor Howard) but he gravitated far more towards personability and working with people than his brother ever did. I don't care how much he benefitted from it since it was one of his hired goons, no one who doesn't care about people would *ever* go to the lengths Jimmy did to get Huell off the hook.
Considering how much Chuck considered the law sacred, I have to wonder what his opinions on things like the Holocaust. Extremist example I know, but the point stands in that no matter what country, injustices will abound. The US literally left Britain because they didn't agree with the application of law. Meaning the country Chuck practices law in is founded by outlaws. This isn't saying that there should be no law at all (far from it) but rather to simply point out the absurdity and folly of calling such a flawed institution sacred.
Chuck is such a clear example of OCPD in fiction to me, and this analysis definitely helped to underscore that in my head.
I didn't realize this video was brand new. I'm in the middle of rewatching and I just figured the algorithm was picking up on that.
Great video, as always.
Thank you J.O for not only speaking to my heart with relatable and empathetic content but also for making me think more deeply!
@9:39 S**t I never considered this angle.. the tiniest possibility that Chuck be sparing his brother's feelings on the passing of their mother. Then the "I never really cared much about you" talk takes a whole different dimension, as does Jimmy's reaction to Chuck's self-immolation.
Jimmy is “evil” because he did illegal stuffs.
However, Chuck is certainly not “good”. Despite being right about Jimmy, Chuck is a kind of person who is in an executive position that represents the establishment who masterfully uses the law to screw over someone he doesn’t like (similar to how big corporations screwing over their own employees within the realm of law or politicians using “legal means” to screw over their political opponents. This will be even worse in dictatorial regime).
If we think about it, Chuck is a much better lawyer and schemer than Jimmy because while Jimmy had to do illegal stuffs to get results, Chuck can just hurt people using legal means. You don’t have to be a genius to pull off what Jimmy did but you need to be a mastermind to do what Chuck is capable of.
People only consider Chuck as a good guy because he’s legal but the law itself leaves so many room for the establishment to exploit marginalized people in the first place. Chuck might not be monstrous like Walter White or Tony Soprano but he’s akin to someone like Logan Roy.
Also, RIP Howard. He deserves so much better than these two brothers (and Kim).
Chuck and Jimmy have such a complicated and fascinating relationship
Your observations are just the best.
I had just been binging all of your BCS/BB videos over the last couple of days, and then you drop this banger out of the blue. Your content is always worth watching, even if I don't know/watch the film or series you're diving into. Thank you!
glad to see youre still doing good after last video
10:48 that was so clean
Incredible analysis, that was fascinating!
Always love your videos, they're the most well written, analytical deep dives I've seen on UA-cam.
Keep it up man, cause you're seriously amazing at this! 😄
just wanna say i love your videos bro, please never stop uploading
Chuck can't accept that within the law and human behavior, there arises contradictions to our lawful ethical practices in issues such as mental illness, family, and systemic oppression. We have to reach people on an emotional level because emotions help us to survive and the law is an emotionally driven thing. Crime and punishment creates the metric and good and evil, but we're not a species of good and evil, just instincts.
It's this idea that also makes me scoff at people who try to live "purely logical" lives; any decision you will ever make, and any calculation you will ever derive, will always have been done because you had an emotional drive/want/need that led you to apply that logic, even if that emotional aspect is as simple as "I don't want myself or others to die". The physical world exists, and things can undeniably be fact, but when push comes to shove, a decision itself cannot ever be made without some kind of emotional drive. Otherwise, we'd all just sit around, without talking or thinking, and let starvation/entropy get to us, as science *clearly* intended.
@ humans are always being affected by our messed up circumstances. It’s the empathy we discover in those messed up things that creates connection. But if these film bros don’t want that connection then they watch to talk. They don’t watch to understand
Amazing videos as always
Makes my Wednesday when these come out.. ESPECIALLY Breaking Bad/ Better Call Saul Videos
Every time there's a Breaking Call Saul video of yours, I stop WHATEVER it is I'm doing and watch it
An excellent video about BCS! seeing this after watching the show with my brother is a real treat!
Great Observation as always
This was NOT a "just an observation". This was an awesome observation
I needed this. Thank you 🎉
Excellent analysis, feeding the algo gods!
Chuck was NOT responsible for Howard's decision to put Kim in doc review. When Howard visits to celebrate Mesa Verde, Chuck is actually impressed and asks whether Kim will be "out of the doghouse" and get her position back. When Chuck talks to Kim directly, he congratulates her (genuinely), and even offers to talk to Howard to "pour a little oil over trouble waters" or something.
That WAS Jimmy projecting, and not really Chuck's manipulation. Like Kim pointed out: "that's Howard, who has an image to uphold." And he does, for the whole show.
nah that was just a show chuck put in to be the “good cop” and make howard look like the bad guy like he always did when jimmy was trying to join the firm Chuck never liked the backlash of people disliking him so he always put in the show at every opportunity while pulling howard’s puppet strings to do what he wants
Thought the same too, seems like Howard always kinda had something against Kim like Chuck had something against Jimmy.
I love the moment when Chuck caught Jimmy in the shower and said "It's Chuck time"
Thank you for this analysis. Chuck and Jimmy's relationship is complex and fascinating and I enjoyed your insights.
Honestly, the question of Jimmy becoming evil was inevitable, or as result of how Chuck Treated him (I learn pretty far toward the latter), is irrelevant in the context of whether or not Chuck was justified. Actions are actions, regardless of the result.
Funny how a lot of people who think Jimmy's "the ends justify the means" mentality made him deserving of chuck's abuse, are basically justifying said abuse as "well, the ends justify the means"
Very well done video essay on one of my favorite universes of all time. I love how most, if not all the characters in the BBU are 'human' versus caricatures of people. No one was "perfect" or "idealized" as they all had various flaws/foibles. It made the show infinitely relatable.
Nailed it. I felt like the makers of show themselves were explaining the characters they designed.
Thank you, JaO, for another insightful video. I hope you're not done with BCS. I'd love to see some more character arc analyses. How about Francesca? Her arc towards BB is fascinating & kinda sad.
Great traits they have.
Chuck's vigorous hard work, dedication and intellect. Chuck's rigidity (which can sometimes be the best approach), adherence to moral values and pursuit of justice.
Jimmy's improvisation, gift of the gab, ability to get back on his feet when life knocks him down. Jimmy's flexible world view.
These two have a great set of traits and wondrous skill set. They both waste their talents and get bogged down in pettiness and self destruction. Worst of all they drag others to the pits with them.
Danke!
Honestly, I think Chuck really captures the fatal, idiosyncratic flaw of human beings in a perfect way.
Wanting to be right and good, all the while completely failing to realize how "wrong" being "right" was making him.
I read the title as “The Alleged Mortality” and was hoping this would be a shitpost about how he survived the fire lol
The idea that Chuck is flammable is mere chicanery
@@MilkyWayGrump you think this is bad? Hes done worse!
Another great video!
I don’t think Chuck actually did have any hand in Kim going to dock review
How I think of it is that Jimmy is an "ends justify the means" type, and Chuck is a "means justify the ends" type.
I've been waiting for this one!!!
Spirit of the Law vs Abuse of the Law.
The greatest victim is Howard. He got screwed over by both McGill brothers (plus Kim) and he died disgracefully.
JaO has the best character analysis on UA-cam
More BCS what a gift thank you!
This is truly good stuff! I've enjoyed all of what I've seen from you so far, so I hope you get recognition for such good material!
Thank you for sharing, and keep up the good work!!
Chuck was such a well written character. The series lost so much when he died, thank god Vince Gilligan always delivers cause we still had more interesting characters left.
Chuck and Jimmy was the textbook case of a self-fulfilling prophecy; by being so convinced Jimmy would become Saul, Chuck ensured it.
That absolves jimmy in a way which is completely unfair
@@Thenadathor I never said that Jimmy wasn't responsible for what he did. It's just that the evidence indicates Chuck could've maybe prevented Jimmy's downfall if he had been more forgiving, but instead, by being so hard on him, Chuck pushed Jimmy even harder toward the dark side. But, to your point, we don't know for sure. Jimmy might've fallen either way, and ultimately he is responsible for his own decisions and actions.
Chuck is like a parent who already determined the childs future the day they were born but has the best intentions in mind.
Jimmy is like that parent who makes a conference with the teacher to ask why they give their child a bad grade.
As Dr Alan Grant once said in Jurassic Park 3: “the best intentions? Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions…”
The basic difference between the brothers is Jimmy will use every dirty trick to benefit himself while Chuck will do every legal trick to punish others.
0:55. Odenkirk is only 5' 9".
Maybe his shoes gives him a slight lift
I love shit like this lol
Sure, but Jimmy McGill is 6'.
5’10
The dynamic between the brothers is the major triumph of this show, perfection.
This is pure gold.
Amazing work
I think this is the first video that I watched from you. Excellent analysis.
Very good analysis
Also, I have to immediately take issue with this statement: "If you do good and to act in accordance with the public's well-being, then good things will happen to you." That is absolutely NOT Chuck's life philosophy. Chuck's outlook on life is that you should "do good and act in accordance with the public's well being" because it's what you're supposed to do...*not* that you do it so good things will happen to you. For Chuck, the law being followed IS the "good thing" and the right way to live life. For him, doing so has zero to do with good things happening to you as a result. The rest of that statement was accurate, but that first part was off-base.
I've always wondered why someone as intelligent as Chuck couldn't figure out his dad was giving away money but it goes to show how much he hated his brother.
He very possibly suspected it, but he idolized the man and refused to accept that. Also besides that, Chucks motivation for doing what he does to Jimmy and seeing him the way he does is not just out of blaming Jimmy for what happened to their father, but out of pure jealousy and resentment towards him, he was the hard working, respectable and accomplished older brother and yet his little brother got coddled and protected by his parents, liked by his peers and everyone around him despite his clear flaws.
Even if he was giving away money, doesn’t excuse Jimmy stealing too.
Money is at the job if you are able bodied
very good video. never saw the situation as you described it. veeeery good video. thank you
I’d love to see this dude Do a vid on the Salamanca’s and Howard.
I love the vid as I’m watching bCS with my mom rn, so keep up the good work
How about Todd and Lalo? Strip away their personalities and they’re actually the same person, complete with comparable uncles.