The MVP: Bob Odenkirk Did the Impossible in Better Call Saul, and Years of Ridiculous Snubs Can’t Change That
Photo Courtesy of AMC
Editor’s Note: Welcome to The MVP, a column where we celebrate the best performances TV has to offer. Whether it be through heart-wrenching outbursts, powerful looks, or perfectly-timed comedy, TV’s most memorable moments are made by the medium’s greatest players—top-billed or otherwise. Join us as we dive deep on our favorite TV performances, past and present:
There are award show snubs, and then there is whatever the hell happened to Better Call Saul. Despite being widely considered one of the best shows in recent memory, the Breaking Bad prequel ended its six-season run without a single Emmy to its name. The show racked up a whopping 53 nominations over the years, with this past January’s 75th Emmy Awards marking the show’s very last chance to break their inexplicable curse. But when the dust settled, Better Call Saul officially walked away with nothing to show for their 63 phenomenal episodes but the world’s worst consolation prize: the new record for most Emmy losses in television history. As many (myself included) have already opined, it’s hard to sleep at night knowing Rhea Seehorn will never receive the recognition she deserves for the incomparable depth she brought to Kim Wexler. But even that crime against humanity pales in comparison (and believe me, that is saying something) to the fact that Bob Odenkirk’s turn as Jimmy McGill/Saul Goodman did not receive a single award—not from the Emmys, the Golden Globes, or the SAG Awards. It’s a performance every bit as masterful as Bryan Cranston’s famed portrayal of Walter White, and perhaps that’s what makes this snub sting so deeply: Cranston won six Emmys for Breaking Bad. Bob Odenkirk did not win a single one for its prequel. What a sick joke!
While the series’ approach to its overall storyline and leading man already set Better Call Saul apart from the masses of good-man-turned-bad-guy character studies crowding our screens, what truly puts Odenkirk’s sad-sack con-man in a league all his own is something else: his sheer improbability.
To put it bluntly, Better Call Saul should not have worked because Jimmy McGill should not have worked. The consensus back in 2013, when the drama starring Odenkirk’s Saul was announced, was that such a prequel would be a blatantly terrible idea; headlines such as “For the Love of God, No More Prequels to Anything Ever” abounded, with critics dreading that the prequel would be the Joey to Breaking Bad’s Friends. Such skepticism made a great deal of sense. Who cares about the comically crooked lawyer Saul Goodman enough to watch an entire show about his slapstick legal shenanigans? The alternative—a show with the impact of its predecessor—seemed impossible. After all, how do you humanize a larger-than-life comic-relief-sleazeball without betraying the original fan-favorite side character? How do you get viewers invested in the emotional journey of a character when they already know his destination, and worse, that it isn’t a pleasant one—when they already know that any attempts he makes to do and be good ultimately fail?
Against all odds, Better Call Saul somehow wrung a Shakespearian tragedy from the life of a man who first appeared before audiences in an ill-fitting suit, sitting atop a desk in front of a terribly green-screened projection of the Constitution to smarmily inform us that we do, in fact, have rights. There are so many reasons that Better Call Saul should not have worked. And yet, every single one was not just nullified or mitigated, but wholly subverted and turned into an inarguable boon—a reason for emotional investment, rather than against it. Before the pilot so much as flickers to life, we already know exactly where Jimmy McGill will end up, and it is on that desk, in front of that green screen. In that sense, Jimmy has been doomed by his own narrative for longer than he’s even existed—he was doomed the moment Saul Goodman was conceived as little more than a four-episode throwaway character in Breaking Bad’s second season. But Better Call Saul warps that audience awareness into anticipation, then empathy, and then into a deep dread.
The original Saul Goodman was a caricature, intentionally so. In Breaking Bad, he was ridiculous and over the top, intended as a source of levity in a show that featured very little. That’s probably why Odenkirk was cast in the first place: prior to Better Call Saul, he had been thoroughly pegged as a comic actor (due to his stints on Saturday Night Live and Mr. Show), and was rarely pursued for any intensely dramatic role. His closest brush with leading-man-material was when he was almost cast as Michael Scott from The Office. Perhaps that’s what makes him such a perfect fit for Jimmy McGill, and what makes it so difficult to imagine Jimmy being played by any of prestige television’s other biggest names; this character is never, ever taken seriously, but God, does he want to be. There are many actors who excel at playing characters trapped in tragedies of their own creation, but Jimmy McGill is no Hamlet; he’s Rosencrantz or Guildenstern, more court jester than wounded prince—and in Odenkirk’s capable hands, it’s easy to say that he’s all the more tragic for it.
Odenkirk blindsides as the show’s massive, throbbing heart—a far cry from prestige TV’s typical stoic, Machiavellian schemers, Jimmy is driven more by emotion than cold calculation or logic. He’s eager and deeply caring, desperate to please and impossibly expressive. Odenkirk is still just as conniving, ridiculous, charismatic, and crude as he was in Breaking Bad, but the actor finally gets to flex more than just his comedic chops in Better Call Saul, and before you know it, you begin to not only root for Jimmy McGill but feel him the same way you’d feel a knife to the chest. How could you not, when Odenkirk keeps contorting his face into the spitting image of a kicked puppy looking up from the boot at the face it belongs to? (I have long said the most unrealistic thing about Better Call Saul is that people keep being mean to Odenkirk’s Jimmy after he starts making That Face, which I’m convinced would be physically impossible for most human beings). There’s just this earnestness to Odenkirk’s performance that sticks with you long after the credits roll; after all, how often do you see a cunning, morally dubious male anti-hero regularly described as earnest? It strikes as doubly odd, considering “earnest” probably wouldn’t make the top 50 adjectives one would use for the Saul Goodman of Breaking Bad (with “cynical” making, at the very least, the top 10). But every aspect of Jimmy feels utterly believable and thoroughly lived-in. Odenkirk dons him like a second skin, transforming him from words on a page into something so tangible you almost feel you could reach out and touch him.