Q: Breaking Bad was such a unique looking show and you part of the group responsible for setting so much of that template. Can you quantify how Saul is aesthetically different from Breaking Bad?
A - Michael Slovis: “Absolutely! If you look at the formal frames of Saul, you look at the fact that the camera is on the dolly 90 percent of the time, you look at how we’re using zoom lenses to do slow zooms in, we’re not afraid of those onSaul. Hand-held, which was what I called the “white noise” of Breaking Bad, is used only for effect on Saul and even more than on Breaking Bad, Vince [Gilligan] and Peter [Gould] have really embraced the ideas of “less is more” when it comes to cutting. So you saw my episode, so you saw the one-r where Jonathan [Banks] walks into the house and we go through the entire house and I made a point of seeing almost every wall of that house, so that you would never guess what was going to happen in that house happens. Or the walk with Harry and Kim through the law office, which goes on for a minute-and-a-half or whatever. Vince and Peter were very clear at the beginning that if you want to do things like that, they’re behind you 100 percent. I’m somebody who believes that cutting should serve the purpose of relaying new information to the audience, because a cut is disruptive and the old school way of telling stories when television was in its infancy or developing in the ‘60s or '70s, of turning in five different-sized shots for every scene and then the producer goes and cuts it into a scene later on, it just doesn’t work anymore. So the whole cinematic approach that we were part of developing and contributing to on Breaking Bad has now developed an audience that is very sophisticated in terms of what they watch. And they get it. Whether they are aware of it, consciously or not, they can feel and see the difference between shows that are really well choreographed and well blocked with the camera and shows that aren’t.”