#daniel fienberg

[heisenbergchronicles]

Q: Between all of the plotting against Hector Salamanca (Mark Margolis) last season and this season's dealings with Gus, it feels like Nacho has been stressed or backed into a corner for a long time. Do you even remember when this guy was last comfortable?

A - Michael Mando: I think what we're doing and what we've done, especially in episode four, is we're really approaching that iconic moment of the darkest night of the soul. I feel like we've been edging towards it more and more and more, and in episode three and episode four, he has to basically do the ultimate sacrifice, where in order to redeem himself, he has to lose himself. He has to lose everything he's ever worked for in order to chase this greater ideal that is the love for his father. So we've been cranking up to that moment.

Q: So, by that standard, with Nacho waiting for his father in this episode, is it rock bottom?

A: I think that's the emptiness of his demons. He's gone through the fire in order to save his dad. I haven't seen the episode, so I'm not sure how they cut it, but to me that's the moment where the lover reveals to his partner that he's actually a vampire, where the partner sees him as the monster that he is, and the tragedy is that it's the love that he has for his father that turns him into the monster. His father finally realizes what that love has transformed his child into. The reason why Nacho does what he does, the reason he gets shot twice in the desert, the only thing that keeps him alive in desert heat, during the operation without any anesthetic, when he goes through this incredible bloodbath in the hotel and when he deals with Gus and psychologically finds the strength in order to go back to his father, it's all in order to redeem himself. It's not self-love, it's selfless love, and that lesson transforms him into the very thing that he's fighting and that's the tragedy of it.

– from 'Better Call Saul' Star on Nacho's Bloody Road to Redemption by Daniel Fienberg, THR

[pablolf]

Gould: Vince has said something that always rings for me, which is that we thought we set out to make a comedy. When we started out, we used to say, "Breaking Bad was 70 percent drama and this one's gonna be 70 percent comedy." But the more we work on this, the more it feels tragic. It's interesting you say it's so dark, because I can often think of moments in this season that I think are as funny as anything we've ever done, like when Jimmy's making his commercials and his slip-and-fall and so on. But I think it is true that the thing you take away from it is a great sadness and I think it's the sadness of the loss of this upbeat, striving and essentially good character, Jimmy McGill. Gilligan: Yeah, it's sadness for what could have been if he had only remained Jimmy McGill, if he didn't have Chuck chipping away at him so that he felt the need to start chipping away at Chuck. If they didn't exhaust themselves emotionally, morally, every-which-way battering each other to the ground, if they hadn't wasted their energy on such a pointless exercise, they both could have been great. It's a good question and it puts me in mind of what Peter said. I didn't want this to be a tragedy, but it is a tragedy. There's no denying that it is a tragedy. We didn't realize that. I didn't realize that going into it. I'm not even 100 percent sure if I'd known that it was gonna be, in a lot of ways, a straight-up tragedy as a story, I'm not even sure if, knowing that going into it... I might have still done it, but I don't know that I would have been as excited about it." Gould: We thought it was gonna be a romp! Gilligan: We thought it was gonna be a romp and it just goes to show what Peter was saying earlier. You can do anything you want when you're a showrunner, which is one of the great joys of the job, but if you're smart you're gonna go where the story takes you and sometimes the story takes you places you just don't want to go. But you can't tell the characters where they need to go and who they need to be. It sounds weird. It sounds like, "Well of course you can! You're the writer!" In a weird way, you are but you're not. Sometimes this feels like transcription, rather than writing. The characters, you really want them to come alive above all else, and they can't come alive if you don't let 'em, if you don't let 'em go where they're gonna go. It's odd, but in our experience it's been the case every time that the characters lead us and not the other way around.

'Better Call Saul' Creators on Season 3's Finale Sadness, Chuck's Fate and Awaiting Renewal

[heisenbergchronicles]

Q: Was there ever a point in that Breaking Bad or even into Saul where you felt as if you kind of “got it?” Where you said, “OK, I can be a dramatic actor now. I feel comfortable in this world, and in this mode”?

A - Bob Odenkirk: “No. I think I'm still adjusting to it all. I would say that with Better Call Saul, that probably some of those scenes, especially the end of that first season, the scene with Michael [McKean] and I where I tell him I realized Chuck held me back, that was about the most intense thing I've ever had to sustain for a full day of shooting. I feel like we really nailed that thing hard. I feel good about what I can do in drama. The interesting thing is, to such a great extent, it's about relaxing and simplifying the thoughts flowing through your head, really being in the moment as they say, and not having this really complicated kind of "process" that actors talk about, but a kind of zen simplification and relaxing and letting go of yourself. I think I've been able to do that a couple of times on Better Call Saul, to great effect, and I feel great about taking that challenge on more. You know, it's weird. People, when they do these awards efforts, they try to find a scene where they're very emotive, and get angry, or shout, or cry, or whatever, and that stuff is challenging and all, and God bless all the actors who pull that shit off, but I'm super proud of the scenes that Rhea and I did in the kitchen of her character's apartment and in the bathroom. There's two scenes where the characters just tell each other the truth, and that's very rare. Most of the time, the characters are hiding a little of the truth. These are just two scenes where the two characters just let go and they're honest about ways in which they've been deceptive, or are not gonna follow the path that their partner has picked for them, and then the partner responds in an understanding, open-minded way.

“Those scenes are the things I’m proudest of. I wish I could submit those for awards, but everyone would go, “I don't get it. He's just a human being.” But I'd be like, “Yeah. That's the thing. He's just a real person. He's living his life and he's not hiding. He's saying something hard to say.” To me, in the moment of acting those scenes with Rhea, nothing has felt more unpredictable and real, because in those moments, no one's hiding and you don't really know what they're gonna say. If they're gonna start being honest with each other, holy shit, who knows what's gonna come out of their mouth.”

– from Bob Odenkirk on 'Better Call Saul' Shifting Toward Saul and Rhea Seehorn's Awards Worthiness by Daniel Fienberg (THR)

[heisenbergchronicles]

Q: The meanest thing that Kim says to Jimmy in that rooftop fight, which was just so great, is the closing line, “Jimmy, you're always down,” which was pretty cold-hearted. Did that observation feel particularly true to Jimmy this season, and does it feel like the point we reach in the finale kind of reverses that downward slope and points to a more up version of Jimmy?

A - Bob Odenkirk: The “Jimmy, you're always down,” is a brutal thing to say, and kind of true. He knows that that's kind of true of him, that he's always looking at the downside. He's definitely looking at the glass half empty. He didn't start that way, but that's where he's been for a while. Everything is a slight to his ego and to his efforts. Then the ending, in embracing the Saul Goodman character, which is what he's doing, he feels like he's owning his power. He's not apologizing for the con man inside him. He's embracing it fully, and it's a great, energetic feeling to just give in to that bad impulse and those talents — it's freeing for him. So yeah, that's where that good energy comes from. It's a shame that he feels so good about being that guy and making that choice, but I feel like he has now embraced it fully, and now next year, we can just start with full-on Saul Goodman energy and we'll see what happens. I have some thoughts about it, but I have to share them with Peter Gould first.

– from Bob Odenkirk on 'Better Call Saul' Shifting Toward Saul and Rhea Seehorn's Awards Worthiness by Daniel Fienberg (THR)

[heisenbergchronicles]

Q: The last shot of that scene, the close-up on Hector's hand, it's such a potent image both because we know what that hand will later do with the bell and with Gus, but also because we're trained to think that that shot in that context is going to end with a twitch of movement, and we don't get that here. What was your approach to the tension of that shot?

A - Andrew Stanton: There was actually debate! When I first got the script, it was scripted to have the finger twitch. Then, if I heard correctly, there was a little bit of debate about whether that was too much and too far, and then they took it out. Then I asked, “Can I shoot two versions just so we have it in the bank?” But I’ve gotta tell you, the minute we were shooting, and it tends to reveal itself to you when you're actually looking through the lens, it was like, “Oh. It is too much.” And everybody gets it. All of Better Call Saul is the “b” in “subtle,” and it would have been, for that show, too much. Everybody's smart. It's a really smart audience and they'll get it.

– from Finding Nemo Director Andrew Stanton’s ‘Better Call Saul’ Debut Goes Dark (Literally) by Dan Fienberg, THR

[heisenbergchronicles]

Q: This is a show with such a specific visual language. How did you get up to speed on the cinematic grammar of Better Call Saul? A - Andrew Stanton: “I don't know what other directors do. I haven't really talked shop, though I certainly probably will over time. But for me, what I do, is that if I'm lucky and it's an established show and they've found their language, is I watch the previous season without the sound on so I don't get distracted by actually getting caught up in the story. If they've done a really good job, I'll just keep getting caught up in the story, and I want to see what they're doing and not doing with the camera and the lighting and the staging.

“This is a horrible simplification, but if you're comparing the last two jobs I've done: Stranger Things is very much out of the playbook of Spielberg and Cameron, while when you look at Saul, from my reference, it was out of Kubrick. It was still cameras, not a lot a lot of crazy movement, and really cool graphic shots, trusting the things that were happening in the shot and not feeling like you had to be fancy in any way. They love wide angles. They love to find interesting ways to look at something that might otherwise be boring in somebody else's hands, and I'm always appreciative of that. It's never gratuitous. The thing that blew me away and made me giddy was it's all in their scripts. They really dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t.’ They understand their characters and everything that's changing to a microscopic level, and it's awesome.

Q: When you say it's all in the script, how much of the visual storytelling is on the page, and where do you have the ability to improvise? A: Well, they're not telling you how to frame things. They're just telling you what's important about the visual. It's all storytelling. You're just following the narrative, and they're very clear about why and where they're focusing their attention, but they're not going to tell you how to focus. So how you decide to introduce two houses inside a giant warehouse? It's up to me. You like to give coverage, because at the end of the day it's their show and you want them to be happy with the work. So in the best scenario, they like the cut of what you've chosen. Then in the next best scenario, they like something else you've chosen, but they've just picked another angle. It's kinda left up to you to decide how you'd want to dramatize this visually. I don't want to use the word "easy," but it's so comfortable because you know you're in good hands and you just know you're telling a very strong story, so it leaves room in your brain that might be, in weaker material, just trying to figure out how to tell the story at all, and you can spend more of your brainpower toward how best to tell it.

– from Finding Nemo Director Andrew Stanton's 'Better Call Saul' Debut Goes Dark (Literally) by Dan Fienberg, THR

[heisenbergchronicles]

Critics' Picks: The Best TV Performances of 2016 (THR)

Rhea Seehorn: “Even if it's cheating, here I would like to hail The Women of AMC. Ruth Negga is the wildcat id at the center of Preacher. But she may get an Oscar nomination, so she's being honored plenty. Mackenzie Davis and Kerry Bishé don't get nearly as much respect as they deserve for Halt and Catch Fire but I praised them plenty in my Top 10 list. Because Better Call Saul barely missed out on my Top 10, though, I haven't written lately about how Rhea Seehorn helped transform Kim Wexler from afterthought love interest into something much more when the writers realized that by putting the camera on Seehorn's face, even without dialogue, she let us see the battle for Jimmy McGill's soul. Our instinct as viewers, thanks to Breaking Bad, has always been to root for Jimmy to become Saul Goodman, but Kim's in love with Jimmy and Seehorn has made us invest in their love. She has turned Better Call Saul into a marathon and not a sprint and that's a remarkable achievement. — Daniel Fienberg

[everthingonly-blog]

Daniel Fienberg: The Best TV of 2016 http://showbiz-only-cont.blogspot.com/2016/12/daniel-fienberg-best-tv-of-2016.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=tumblr #tvseries #updates #celebrity #justinbieber #taylorswift