[This story contains spoilers for “Axe and Grind,” the May 16 episode of Better Call Saul.]

As a key piece of Spike Lee’s early ensemble, the builder of a drug-and-chicken empire on Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, an occasional antagonist to Baby Yoda on The Mandalorian and in too many other roles to list, Giancarlo Esposito’s versatility in front of the camera is well established, and he has the handful of Emmy nominations to prove it.

You may not know, however, that Esposito has directed a pair of features — 2008’s Gospel Hill and 2017’s The Show — or that Monday night’s Better Call Saul marked his episodic directing debut. It’s a vintage Saul episode, featuring entertaining scheming from Jimmy and Kim, a surprisingly sweet scene with Mike and his granddaughter, plus a scene of shocking violence with Lalo in Germany.

Esposito spoke with The Hollywood Reporter about why he helmed this particular Gus-free episode, getting to direct his prickly pal Jonathan Banks and the challenges of learning the Better Call Saul visual language from a new perspective.

How and when did you begin the conversations with Peter Gould and Vince Gilligan about directing?

I got a call, I think it was late October or September and it was Peter, [producer] Melissa Bernstein and also Vince Gilligan and they called, and I really thought something happened, the show’s gonna get pushed or somebody died or something awful happened. And they said, “Hi, how are you? I have Peter and Melissa on the phone.” I went, “Ah, we’re just chit-chat-patty-whacking.” And I went, “Wow, I wonder what’s going on.” And then Peter jumped in and said, “Yeah, you probably wonder why we’re calling. We’re basically calling to just ask you if you would like to lend your creative expertise. … Would you like to direct this season?”

And I fumbled and said, “Could you say that again? Am I dreaming?” And then I took the phone from my ear and said, “Hold on guys.” And I went, “Ahhhh!” and I put the phone back through my ear and I said, “OK, I’m glad I got that out. OK. This is real, right?” They said, “It’s absolutely real. We’re gonna figure out what episode really seems like the right one for you, one that you’re not too heavily in, and we’d be honored.” And that was it. That’s how we started. And I was elated.

Years prior, I had given my second feature film to Vince and to [Saul executive producer] Mark Gordon with the intention of wanting to direct. It was 10 years ago. They said they never got around to it. And I never mentioned it again, never asked again. I kind of felt in that moment that good things come to those who wait, because they knew I had a desire. I guess they banked on the idea that I had some kind of vision. I’m certainly not an expert on this show. I know it in a scriptual sense. I know it well, I read every episode, no matter whether I’m in it or not. And I’ve watched a number of them, but I’m certainly not an expert. So I was terribly honored to be asked.

Rhea Seehorn’s directing episode two weeks ago had some very big Kim scenes. And as you mentioned, you got a Gus-free episode. Given how chaotic TV production can be, was that your preference, or do you enjoy directing yourself?

I’ve done two feature films where I’ve directed myself in them, and I do enjoy it. It’s a lot of pressure to do that. The decision wasn’t made by me. We were collaborative in the opportunity of which to direct. It was decided that this seemed like the right one for a couple of particular reasons. We had the Germany scenes, which coincided with Melissa Bernstein’s episode, which was also partially in Germany. It had the Lalo Salamanca [Tony Dalton] piece of it, which is such a very dramatic and powerful moment, very, very frightening, but also very fun for Lalo as a character. And to have the ability to direct something that is edgy and violent that comes out of nowhere, where you think one thing’s gonna happen and something else does, I think they wanted me to have the opportunity to be able to do that, knowing that that is not my expertise, yet it is part of the Gus storyline. So I think that played into their decision as well.

Then to have moments that were so very fulfilling in regard to Jimmy and Kim planning this whole scam with this very comedic scene with the actor, and the mustache scene, which I think they thought maybe I could bring some levity and lightness and fun to that as well. And then of course, the opening scene, which is young Kim, and I had somewhat of a shaky childhood and so I really related to that scene, as I was very close to my mother. I was on Broadway at seven years old as an actor and my mother was very close to me, so that relationship between mother and daughter reflected my relationship between mother and son; although different, it had a lot of similarities. So I think the decision was made to have me do this episode because it felt like the right one for everyone involved.

But then the best laid plans of mice and men, they never seemed to go right. I didn’t have a full prep, or the prep was interrupted by us having to get an actor, [Stefan Kapicic], over from Germany to shoot earlier than expected. So I was jammed on getting some locations for that particular German section together very, very quickly, and having to find it, set it, lock it. There were particular reasons that we had to do it that way. So I had a shorter prep for that section, which was one of the most important sections of the episode.

So I had my challenges on my episode, Rhea and I passed in the night, and we would talk about what her challenges were. And hers were that she had a lot of scenes that she was in. I certainly said to her, “Just take deep breaths and know it the best you can” — because she did ask — “know it inside and out. And then you gotta make the truck run back and forth to see the video monitors and check it out and set it for what you want.”

She was so well prepared. I think she was probably more well prepared than I was.

When we become directors, we shed everything. When I walked on the set the first day in a hurry — because again, the section of my episode was pulled up — I was in sweats, my running clothes and running shoes in the forest with an old hoodie on, and the crew didn’t even recognize me. Your vanity goes out the window. So when I saw Rhea, we passed on the day that we were at the same location — I had to do Gus’ house and she had to do something down the street as a pickup — and I looked at her, I said, “Oh yeah, there you are!” She looked like a director. I didn’t care how I looked, and the crew was like, “Who’s this guy?” And they went, “Oh, it’s you?” Because they know me as Gus. It’s interesting how we change to fit the role we need to play, but an important role, as a director. And I know that Rhea felt the same way.

When I talked with Rhea about her episode, she spoke about the challenges of doing this show, which has such a unique visual language, while resisting doing any shot that’s cool just for the sake of being cool. I’m curious what your experience was with finding the right balance between those things.

Well you know, look, I’m a filmmaker. So I make film. And what we do here is the closest thing to making film every episode on Better Call Saul, particularly in this sixth season. So what was going down was really filmic, and yet I still had ideas that I thought maybe I could squeeze in and maybe would fit the bill, particularly in the opening shot. I remember being on a Zoom call with Peter and everyone, and I wanted to come out of this department store ahead of them, on a crane, and then completely drift backwards high into the sky as they walked out to the parking lot and then pick them up before they turned the corner of the parking lot to get into their car and take that short walk, just before the reveal was made that her mom stole her the earrings and was chiding her and it was all just an act.

Well, everyone went silent on the phone, and I realized from that kind of silence that that’s not something they do. And I talked to Matt Credle, one of the great cameramen that we have, and Matt said, “We just don’t do that. You can do it . But we don’t do it.” And I understood why.

So I started to learn the visual language that is the show outside of being a viewer, from actually being in action. They didn’t give me the crane, and I didn’t mind. I shot it a different way. I found some other really cool shots to create length and distance between them as they come out of the store. I wanted to be distant as they’re talking to the shop manager and then come in again to create the distance that’s between them. So I did other things instead. But yes, to fit into the visual language that is the show, you respect that. And I certainly did greatly. I only wanted to enhance that.

And then it looked like you still got to use your crane on the last shot of the episode, with Kim and the u-turn.

I sure did! That was a different crane, one that’s pretty specific. It’s the Cayenne Porsche that has the arm on it that’s able to go anywhere. And Paul [Donachie], the DP on my episode, he’s so brilliant and we worked together so very well. He’s a Brit and he looked and me and he said, “Oh, so you finally got your crane, huh?” And I said, “Yes!”

Because that u-turn was important. It’s a u-turn in Kim’s life. It reflects a decision that she makes that she has the whole budding world in front of her that she’s always wanted, and she’s been able to finally realize a dream and you know she’s gonna go to Santa Fe and nail it. And instead she turns back to go and do this scam with Jimmy. So that u-turn was really important, and it was also important to reflect on her after the call with Jimmy in the car, so that we felt her emotion coming up.

At that moment, a great thing happened that was unexpected. The sky kept changing outside of the passenger window, when I was shooting it on her side. We shot it from many different angles with that crane. Getting the timing of that was interesting, feeling like we were far enough away from Albuquerque, but yet could see it. That’s a trick, right? Because we know I had to shrink the geography, right? We wanted her to be closer to her destination and farther away from where she started. But you wanted to be able to visually see that that’s Albuquerque, there’s a mountain there. So we kind of reversed everything very smartly and figured out how to see that, when that might not really be the case, but it’s the feeling. So the visual language of this show was played out in that last scene, because it is so very wide, and some other moments in our show as well.

I take direction and suggestion really well because there’s a team of great, great filmmakers who make this show and who have a very keen eye and are educated about that language and certainly have had enough experience doing it on this, the best show on television.

We’ve talked several times over the years about your relationship with Jonathan Banks and how it’s based on a mixture of respect and busting chops. I’m curious as to how that carried over to your interactions as a director with him.

It’s a great question. I’ve realized that Jonathan, we are a lot alike. I’m impatient. And I’ve been working on my patience and vulnerability for some time. Jonathan wants to cut to the chase. He’s impatient with me. He’s impatient with Vince. And if you’re not clear, absolutely clear, about what you say to him, it’s like: [Esposito uses a note-perfect Jonathan Banks impression.] “What are you trying to say?”

He’s trying to understand. “What are you trying to say? Well, just say it! No, no, what? No, no, just say it. No, I don’t wanna do that. I’ll do it! But I don’t really wanna do it.”

That’s Jonathan.

So I had a scene with him that turned out really fabulous because I wanted to feel his threat and his language and his angst, and I only gave him notes when I saw him giving me exactly what I wanted. When I saw when he didn’t, and I went, “Well, you know, that was all right. But the last one was exactly what I wanted.”

“Ah, what are you saying?”

“I’m saying the last one was more intense and it was better.”

“Oh, come on!”

To learn how to speak to an actor, especially an actor friend, is interesting, and to say less sometimes is more. With Jonathan, to me, saying less is more because when I see it, I know it. And when he feels it, he knows it. And most of the time he feels it. So it’s a matter of just allowing him a space to feel comfortable.

Given that he takes so little guff, what is the secret to getting the sweetness out of Jonathan Banks? Because the scene with him watching his granddaughter, doing the astronomy, is such a fundamentally sweet scene in a show that isn’t always like that.

That was a great scene — them not knowing he’s so close to them, them not really being able to feel how much he loves them, because they don’t know he’s right there. To get that sweetness out of Jonathan, I’ve gotta say, he’s already a sweet man underneath all of that gruffness. So all you’ve gotta do is put the kid in front of him or put her on the phone or have him see that, because he has children, he’s got grown children. He’s nostalgic about them and their growing up. He’s very fond of my children when they were young, and they’re grown now too. So it’s been a lot of years for us.

He’s really a softie. And the key is to just allow him the acknowledgment of how much variety he has in his performance. When I remind him of that, he’s able to go soft without losing the strength. He’s able to go soft without losing the cutting edge. In that scene, he’s so soft and wonderful: “Listen to your mother, go back inside, go to bed.” You know what I mean? It’s without feeling threatening, but you know that’s there, but it’s still sweet. “So what star is that? Tell me about it.”

He’s interested. That’s what it is about Jonathan! He’s engaged, interested and always loving underneath all of that gruff.

I want to at least touch on the German scene because it is so totally terrifying and brutal. It feels like something either out of a horror movie or maybe a little Sam Peckinpah, like Straw Dogs? I’m curious what your visual inspiration was for building out that sequence.

A lot of conversation went into this, and we didn’t want it to be a horror movie. We played with a lot of different, in conversation, ways to do it. Peter was so very keen and interested in how we would do it and he asked questions, which sometimes to me felt like I was being baited, but not at all. They were honest questions. “How do you feel about this?” I said, “Well, look, Peter. I gotta say, I don’t really want to see it. I don’t want to see all of it. I could see all of it, but when you see all of something, there’s nothing left to the imagination.”

There were a lot of factors. You had to see him, Lalo Salamanca, get hit in the stomach and the gun go away. And it’s in hay, so there’s a sound effect, and what is it gonna hit? It’s so fast that you see it go away and how he snatches that axe, where are you gonna focus? I want to see him. And my inspiration, I love Peckinpah, and that’s a little more violent than this scene is, but it happens so quickly that you see blood, you see hit, but then you’re somewhere else, and Peckinpah does a lot of that. We decided to test it and look at it a bunch of different ways with stunt guys, with cameras, to see. I thought if we could see low, I wanted to see from toe to head, full-body, as he was going down, as Casper’s getting laid. I wanted to be eventually, in cutting, on his face to see the pain.

So the blood and the way to do the hit and the cut was important, because obviously I couldn’t take off his shin in reality. Which is what I would’ve liked to do. So A History of Violence was an inspiration, Straw Dogs, as you mentioned, was an inspiration. There were some westerns, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, some scenes in that. Violence that goes by so quickly that you register and you see, it and you go, “What the hell just happened?!?” That’s what I think we eventually achieved. For me, I think it was a win-win in deciding that, you know, we had to know that the guy’s foot’s off, but did we have to really see it come off?

You got to see right before it, right after it. That’s the magic of filmmaking. Then you got to see the blood, which can’t be too much. And then you’ve gotta see the acting. It all works seamlessly as we rehearsed it physically. And I got a chance to be over Lalo. If I could be over Lalo’s shoulder, onto the body and then cut in on the foot — I didn’t want too many cuts — and then see him laid out and see the pain on his face as I went up, I wanted to come up his body from his foot all the way up. And we got it. I’m really happy they gave me the opportunity, that this happened in my episode, and I had the opportunity to do it.

As a last question, you obviously do a lot of TV work. Of the shows that you’ve been working on or watching most recently, having directed this episode of Saul, which show would you most like to direct on at some point in the future?

That’s so very interesting. I would say Ozark, because that seems like a great follow-up to what I’ve just done in terms of literature and subject matter and all that. Then I would say The Mandalorian, and that’s a big challenge because that’s a world that I don’t know as well. That’s technology that I don’t know as well — holograms, volume green screen. And I say that completely challenging myself to learn that world because I come from a world of dramatic acting. I come from a world where people are talking to each other and the drama and the danger and the confusion exists within the element of words and in a show that uses a visual to tell its story. So to fit what I do into the theme of this show has been a great honor, and to have done it seamlessly, learning the visual way to tell a story and not just focus on the word, has been really wonderful. To direct on a larger scale or a bigger template would be the same, to be able to capture what the characters are trying to say, and, and the depth with which they portray themselves, given whether we’re here or whether we’re here, to still have that power and strength, Mandalorian, Ozark, I I’d love to direct on one of those shows eventually. It would be a great challenge to learn how to do that.