Q : What is your exact role on Breaking Bad & Better Call Saul?
Jenn Carroll : On Breaking Bad, I started out as a Post PA, and then joined the Writers’ Office as Script Coordinator/Writers’ PA in Season 5. When Gordon moved up to be a kick-ass writer on Better Call Saul, I took over as Vince’s assistant, and helped train the new folks we brought onto the team. As we head into Season 2, I’m Vince’s assistant and also an Associate Producer on BCS.
Gordon Smith : By the way no matter what Jenn says, she’s underselling her role. She keeps the train on the tracks in Burbank, both on Breaking Bad and BCS. And I’m currently a Story Editor on BCS.
Jenn Carroll : Thank you, Gordon. That's very kind.
Gordon Smith : I tell it like it is.
Q : What is it like working on an industry that is known for being racist and sexist towards women. How do you deal with that?
JC : One of my favorite things about both Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul is how many extraordinary women help make the show what it is. On Breaking Bad, we had three amazing female producers: Michelle MacLaren and Melissa Bernstein on the ground in Albuquerque, and Diane Mercer guiding Post in Burbank. They made sure everything ran smoothly across all parts of production, and helped foster a positive, creatively-fulfilling work environment. We also had the brilliant Genny Hutchison and Moira Walley-Becket on our writing staff, as well as so many fantastic ladies on the ground in Albuquerque, like Nina Jack (our 1st AD who is now a producer on BCS) and Jennifer Bryan (the costume designer that recently brought you Jimmy McGill’s delightfully ill-fitting suits). The amazing Sharon, Sherry, and Kiira head up casting in LA and ABQ, and Kelley Dixon is one-half of our pair of insanely talented editors here in Burbank. And – our directors? On BCS, we had three female directors in the first season: Michelle MacLaren, Nicky Kassell, and Larysa Kondracki. They all brought different things to the table, but the two things that were true across the board were: each had a very interesting eye for composition, and all three were wonderful to work with. I could go on and on about the women that I’ve been lucky enough to look up to and learn from here. In my experience, there’s nothing that I, as a woman, feel like I’ve been held back from when it comes to the creation of these shows.
Q : Gordon Smith gave his take on "Guns and Chicks" the last time he spoke to us. Would you care to do the same?
JC: I agree with everything Gordon said before! It was thrilling to see these ideas we had thrown around in Burbank turn into something that looked of a piece with the show. And Vince, because he’s the greatest, made sure we were able to participate in every part of the process. The most gratifying moment for me was when Bob Odenkirk told us that this scene really helped get him back into the groove of the show, and figure out where Saul’s head was at coming into the final season. And then, Gordon and I worked with the editor -- Trevor Baker -- who was our post coordinator then, but is now killing it as a professional editor. He’s incredibly talented, and he took all of Michelle’s great footage and did such cool stuff with it. It goes from sexy to heart-breaking so fast, and I couldn’t be happier with how it turned out.
Q : Gennifer Hutchinson was a writers' assistant and after a while she became a brilliant writer of the show, the same applies to Gordon Smith too. I see a pattern here Jenn, don't you?
JC: Yes! I think it’s wonderful. When you’re on staff here, you have the opportunity to see every part of the process that you’re interested in (as long as you have the courage to ask and it doesn’t interfere with the work you’re supposed to be doing). I feel like I do a lot of learning by osmosis, listening to the writers breaking story all day and reading all the emails flying back and forth between Albuquerque and Burbank. Right now, I’m trying to focus my energy on learning how to be a good non-writing producer instead of trying to follow the amazing Genny and Gordon on the writer track. I’m not saying never, but I really love where I’m at right now as an Associate Producer. Having said that: our current writers’ assistant (and now also script coordinator!) Heather Marion is someone who you guys should definitely keep an eye on. She’s a fantastic writer, and she recently participated in Sundance’s inaugural Episodic Story Lab.
Q : I want to talk about the pilot a little bit. We all know that Saul Goodman & Mike are such beloved characters. How difficult was to try and reinvent those well known and established characters?
GS: I think it’s a great opportunity for us with both of them. In Breaking Bad, we got to spend time with Mike and Saul, but it was always limited and ancillary to Walt’s journey. And while they were fun to spend time with in the other show, here we get to ask the question: how did these guys get to be who they are? How does someone with Mike’s “moral code” become a contract killer? How does a guy end up as a lawyer who seems like he has a broken moral compass? Jimmy is about a million miles away from Saul Goodman, so it’s interesting to figure out exactly how this plucky guy became such a crook. At its core it’s always the same question: can people change, or is their true nature merely revealed by new circumstances?
JC: I agree. We're used to seeing those two through the lens of how Walt saw them when he interacted with them -- it's a nice parallax to see things from Jimmy's perspective. All this to say: I’m sure Gordon would be the first to admit that one thing that was difficult in breaking this pilot, and every episode of the season, was a similar headache that haunted the final season of Breaking Bad with the machine gun in the trunk: having a set future that we have to work toward. These writers hold themselves to an incredibly high standard, and that puts a lot of pressure on them to make sure that the characters and events of the new show align properly with the previous show.
GS: I might not be the first to admit it, but I’d certainly be in the queue to do so. It is a constant challenge, and has been from the word go.
Q : We hear all the time that the 101 lesson of a spinoff is to try and make it stand on its own. How did you decide to bring back Tuco. Weren't you worried about Better Call Saul's "independence"?
GS: We absolutely hope that this show will stand on its own legs. However, it’s not just in the same town and world as Breaking Bad; the story has to interconnect on a deeper level or I feel like we’re not really holding up our end of the bargain with the audience. So, we did worry about bringing in Tuco to the story, but in the end we felt that he was the right character and his presence served this story, and wasn’t just a crutch or a stunt. Throughout the first season, we’ve tried to nod to the previous show when it felt organic, and avoid it when it seemed gratuitous.
Q : Vince Gilligan & Peter Gould said in numerous interviews, that there were "serious talks" of Better Call Saul being a straight half-hour comedy. Let's just say that this scenario was the reality. How a Better Call Saul sitcom would have looked like? I am guessing a buddy comedy between the McGill brothers
GS: That version wasn’t in play by the time the writers’ room opened, but I think it was decided against fairly early on. If I had to guess what Peter and Vince were thinking about, there’s a good chance that there would be no Chuck if they had gone with a half-hour comedy version—I’m not sure how he’d fit in a satisfying way in that version. It would be more of the whacky adventures of shyster lawyer Saul, I’d think.
Q : I usually do not like "big monologues" that much on TV shows, because they are (99% of the time) full of unnecessary exposition, but on Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul that is not the case. They are so well written and well played that they are enjoyable to watch. My question is, how difficult is to avoid writing exposition on this modern era of TV?
GS: Exposition gets a bad rap, but it’s absolutely necessary: you have to know the appropriate information for the story to make sense. What I think people are reacting to when they say something is “expositional” is exposition that’s not dramatically motivated, when characters simply tell each other facts that don’t serve a tactical purpose within the scene. If character A tells character B something, it should be to push character B toward doing something character A wants, basically. So, it’s always hard to do, but when it’s done right, you don’t notice or care. Probably the greatest exposition scene I can think of is in Raiders of the Lost Ark, when the government guys come to ask Indiana Jones to go search for the Ark. If you watch that scene, you get almost every salient piece of information about the Ark, how to find it, who’s looking for it, and the mythology and power of the object in a scene that’s maybe three-four minutes long, and it never feels expositional, because even as the characters are explaining all this stuff, they’re all trying to get something from each other.
Q : Speaking of great monologues, I have to ask about Mike's. That one was an example of a beautifully written monologue, because it captured so perfectly Mike's emotions. Also Mike as we all know is the strong and silent kind of guy. So, how difficult was to give Mike a monologue, knowing that he is does not talk much?
GS: Actually, I think it was very helpful. I have a tendency, myself, to over-talk. (Jenn can certainly attest to that), so when I was writing his monologue, knowing how taciturn Mike is helped: I knew that any line had to be completely necessary, or I’d have to cut it. Mike would only say it if he HAD to, which simplified things for me. There was a clear litmus test for the dialogue.
Q : Mike was something like the moral compass on Breaking Bad (yes, I know that you're talking about a murderer) and that seems to be the case on Better Call Saul too. So, are there any different shades of Mike that we you are going to witness in the upcoming episodes?
JC: We can’t give away anything that happens in the new season, but I think we’ve already seen so many shades of Mike in the first season! Especially in Gordon’s episodes – we see a real turning point for Mike when he agrees to work with the Vet. We watch him step off the train in Albuquerque looking for a fresh start, and he turns down the opportunity for “that kind” of work, but two episodes later, we watch him compromise himself by going back to the Vet in order to provide for his family. You’re right to note that it’s odd to consider Mike a moral compass, given all the “wet work” he does, but he feels that way because he has a code, and he does everything he can to stick to it. That’s what he explains to Pryce in episode 109, and then again to Jimmy in 110.
Q : Let's talk about the finale a little bit. It felt like Saul was trying to relive his old hits before getting back to his new reality. What was your take on the finale?
JC: When you’re betrayed by someone that you trust and hold in high esteem, you have two options: to lash out, or to get the hell out of Dodge. I don’t think Jimmy would have had a problem drinking away his anger if he could pin all his fury on Hamlin, but when he found out it was Chuck? That’s so much deeper. And whether it’s because he didn’t want to do something he’d regret, or because some part of him believed Chuck was right – he had to run away and get his head straight.
GS: I think that’s a great way to put it, Jenn. He has to bleed the poison out.
Q : Also, Saul turned down a great offer from a well-known law firm. It seemed at the moment that this offer was exactly what he wanted but he declined. It seemed to me that maybe he was tired of trying to do the "right thing" and not being rewarded for it. What is your take on the last scene?
GS: That’s a good way to look at it. We say sometimes in the room that he’s going to “live by his own lights.” I think it means that at that moment, he feels like he’s been freed from his obligation to Chuck if nothing else. We’ll see more of what that last scene means to him as he moves forward into Season 2.
Q : Another reason the last scene was a brave choice was because we almost reached the point of Jimmy's total transformation to Saul. Are we gonna see more of Jimmy or Saul in the next season?
GS: That’s an interesting interpretation! We talk all the time about what constitutes “Saul-ness”—is it the name? The suit? The persona? Or does it have to do with his willingness to commit certain kinds of crime? When Saul first appears in episode 208 of Breaking Bad, he suggests killing Badger as a way out of his predicament with Walt and Jesse, for example—I’m not sure that Jimmy by the end of Season 1 would be ready to do that, even with the break he’s had with Chuck. So as for who we’ll see in Season 2, I hope we’ll see more of all sides of the man, because I’m honestly not sure who Saul/ Jimmy/ Gene “really” is yet. He’s certainly surprised us so far, and I hope that he has more surprises in store for us.
Q : Breaking Bad didn't have a strict number of seasons because it was an ongoing process (story-wise). I am guessing the same applies to Better Call Saul too. So, do you have a certain number of seasons and endgame in your heads?
GS: We have a rough shape in mind that we like, and a number of seasons that we hope we’d get to be able to achieve it. But there are very few particulars that seem like they’d be anywhere close to set in stone!
JC: And when it’s done: the Kettleman prequel? Kettle House on the Prairie? One Flew Over the Kettle’s Nest?
GS: Kettleman of the House. Kettle of Fish. Oh! One where Annie Potts moves in next door and is also an FBI agent who’s on to their criminal shenanigans: Potts and Kettlemans. We could probably do this all day…
Q : I know that you are probably in the first stages of breaking season 2 right know, but is there anything you can share with us about the upcoming season?
JC: It’s going to be great! We’re all really excited.
GS: Yes. What Jenn said.
Q : When you look back at season one are there moments and episodes you’re particularly proud of and think were really well realized, and then are there maybe some that didn’t quite work as well as you’d liked?
JC: I wouldn’t say that there are moments that didn’t work as well as we’d like, but there were definitely moments that surprised everyone in the editing room. I think that always happens when the directors and the editors get a hold of the material and have the opportunity to elevate it. The opening to episode 107 surprised me. I loved Larysa’s choices in that scene – especially the shots with Mike at the bottom of the frame, the giant board of criminal faces above him. As far as well-realized goes, one moment that was almost exactly as I imagined it when reading the script was in episode 105 – the scene with the stairchair? The house that Nicky and our locations team found was just perfect for that moment. Glorious.
Q : How did you deal with the "prequel problems" (knowing the characters fate won't change, not much at least)? How challenging is to build high stakes already knowing the characters' fate and without having Walt go guns blazing?
GS: There’s a strain of thinking in our current TV culture that, in my opinion, prioritizes so-called “existential threats” too much. Not knowing if any given character will live or die is supposedly the highest compliment one can give to a show. To me, this privileges surprise and plot over character. I’m not knocking some of the big shows of which this is often said, but I am saying they’re great in spite of that feeling, not because of it – they have great characters, acting, directing and so forth. Death, to me, is the least interesting part of a character’s story. How a character dies is not the ultimate question; how they live is. Walt took this to an extreme in Breaking Bad – his death isn’t ever really in question; it’s inexorable. The show is about what he’s going to do before that point. The fact that he didn’t run off with his family and sail around the world the moment he made his millions, or that he didn’t take money from Gretchen and Elliot – those are the things that make the character interesting. I think in some ways, the idea of a “spoiler” has made this death-obsession more potent. People equate their enjoyment of a narrative strictly to the surprise of that first experience, but I think that’s a little reductive. Generally, if the writers are doing their job properly, you SHOULD see any big turn coming. And if you don’t, that’s just a surprise and that kind of shock wears off pretty fast and doesn’t have much value. It’s the equivalent of the fake-out jump-scare in horror movies, which I also dislike: yes, if you make a loud noise when things have been quiet, the audience will jump, but so what? That’s not being scared, that’s being startled. My point here is that knowing the plot isn’t the same as knowing the story. Shakespeare isn’t great because of his surprises, nor are the great Greek tragedians. They told stories that everyone knew, and would often remind their audiences of the plot at the beginning of the plays. I think they did so that the audience could get over surprise and get to the deeper level of paying attention to what’s really important: why are the characters doing the things they do? What do their actions have to say about who we are right now as a culture? What are the nuances, the subtleties, the psychologies? This is all a very long-winded way of saying: to me, the fact that we know Saul lives through Breaking Bad is as liberating in its way as it was to know that Walt was going to die. Instead of focusing on whether he’s going to survive, we can explore with much greater depth what I think is a more interesting question: what is the state of Jimmy’s soul? Is he completely lost or is there hope for redemption for him?
Q : I have never heard of Chuck’s condition before. What was the process of choosing it? Also at some point it seemed to me that he was faking it as a way to “hurt” Saul. Is this something that will be explored in season 2, or I am completely wrong about it?
GS: Chuck’s Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) is a tricky thing to discuss, especially because the discourse (at least here in the U.S.) around mental health tends to talk about things as either being “physical”/real as opposed to “mental”/fake. I get the impulse: if you’ve got a cut in your arm, you look down and see the cut, and know that your pain comes from that injury. The pain of mental illness is just as real, but it’s hard to talk about because you can’t point to it and see it. My feeling about it is that Chuck is genuinely suffering from a condition, and he feels that suffering acutely. Whether that condition is some sort of as-yet unknown idiopathic physical ailment or an affliction of the mind remains to be seen, but in either case I believe Chuck is definitely not faking it. He’s really experiencing symptoms, even if the source of those symptoms happens to be his own mind. Hopefully, we’ll have a chance to explore Chuck’s condition more as we move forward and find out how deep and long-lasting the remission we see at the end of Season 1 is.
Q : David Chase famously talked about how much he hated "walk and talk" scenes and shots of the back of characters' heads. On Breaking Bad & Better Call Saul we have never seen a "walk & talk" scene. Was it unintentional or you just share the same "hatred" towards the matter? Finally, we have witnessed some gorgeous shots of the back of the characters' heads. So what is your take on that?
JC: In the tone meetings for each episode before shooting began, Vince and Peter would try to empower our directors to be fearless with their shot-making. The Conformist came up a lot in conversations they had with Arthur Albert about the look of the show from the very beginning, and so did the idea that we could set this show apart from the previous one by keeping the camera on sticks more. Breaking Bad had such a distinctive hand-held look, and Better Call Saul tends to have shots that are more still. But, there aren’t any hard and fast rules about how to shoot an episode, or things that Vince and Peter specifically tell directors not to do. If ever there was ever one rule, I think it would just be that the story itself should drive the way it’s told.
Q : Almost all of show's writers made their directional debut on the show. Do you see yourself directing next season?
GS: I still nurse an ambition to direct some day, but I am more than swamped enough with my writing duties for the foreseeable future. In a dream world, I’d love to write an episode and have Jenn direct it!
JC: Who wouldn’t want to direct an episode of this show?? Because the writers travel to Albuquerque to produce their episodes, they’re able to work closely with the directors and the whole production team. They help choose locations and cast, they participate in every concept, production, and tone meeting, and they’re the arbiters of the story on set. The directors make sure we’re telling the story of each individual episode, but the writers are on hand to speak to not just their particular episodes, but to where the show is going and the entire season as a whole. After being so involved with the process of producing an episode, writers are in prime position to throw their names into the ring to direct. I’d be really excited to see Gordon (or Genny Hutchison!) direct an episode. They’re brilliant writers, and they know the story and the world so well. Having said that, we currently have such a wealth of fantastic directors in the Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul family that we are thrilled to keep bringing back year after year, it’s tricky for anyone to find an available slot!
Q : I think that Hannibal is great example of raising high stakes on already well known characters, what's your take on that show?
GS: Unfortunately, I’ve only seen a little bit of that series. It’s incredibly stylish! Hopefully, I’ll have a chance to catch up on it at some point, because people rave about it to me all the time. Also it has cannibalism, and that’s pretty neat.
Follow Gordon Smith on Twitter : @amorteamore
Follow Jenn Carroll on Twitter : @futurejenn
What did you think of the interview guys? Sound off on the comments below!
No comments:
Post a Comment