When The Night Of left Detective Box at the end of Episode Seven, he was sitting alone in a bar, looking at a fresh new set of clubs and not thinking about golf. He was thinking about the kid behind bars in Rikers, the kid whom he aggressively investigated for murder. And on sitting on the stand, as Chandra outlined all the leads he failed to follow, Box realized that he didn't do his job. He had the wrong kid.

Knowing that, Box redeemed himself in the final episode, searching tirelessly through untouched evidence and finding another suspect with a stronger motive. Though John Stone pulled through with a brilliant closing statement, Box was the hero. He solved the crime. He told the prosecution Helen Weiss, who ultimately chose not to continue the case after a split jury. In a show filled with ethical ambiguity, Box was its ambiguous hero.

But, he's not done yet. Where The Night Of left off, Box still has a criminal to catch. Andrea's murderer is somewhere out there, and he and Helen need to bring him to justice.

The morning after the series finale of The Night Of, Bill Camp took a break from filming Yorgos Lanthimos' follow-up to The Lobster, The Killing of a Sacred Deer, to chat with us about his character and the possibility of returning to solve the crime.

What an unexpected, though satisfying ending last night. What feedback have you gotten about it today?

People are really pleased with the finale—albeit, how much you can be pleased with the outcome of a murder trial. As the finale of a show, all the feedback I've gotten has been positive. I think we're fulfilled by the finale. Only one of my friends in L.A. got in touch with me and said, "Goddammit, I wanted to see someone hang."

When you first read the script, what was your reaction?

It's such a great piece of writing, and it's always satisfying to play a great text all the way through. Of course, it's satisfying that Box gets to come to some sort of completion with his job and how he defines himself. It was satisfying from the beginning, because it's so engaging and it's such an intense story in how Richard and Steven have presented it and structured it and the way it played out with all the great acting and the vision of it all.

So, when you were first reading through it, who did you think killed Andrea, who did you think did it?

As I was reading it, it definitely was as much a mystery to me, Bill Camp, as it was to anyone. I had my own theories as I was going through, of course, which is why it's so great. I thought it was this guy—then wait a minute, maybe it was this guy. Any of those potential suspects. It certainly surprised me when I first got to it. It just excited me for it as a reader and an actor.

What was your theory?

I think I was suspecting Paul Sparks' character [Andrea's stepfather, Don] at first a little bit. That's sort of the nature of his job, too. There has to be a sort of open mindedness. He can't just go through one door, he needs to go through all the doors. And he comes to the realization that he didn't look in all the doors. It's something he came to realize after the retirement.

HBO

Yeah, I was certainly happy to see Box have his redemption at the end.

It was nice to know that there was a certain sense of fulfillment for him, in terms of his job. Ultimately he could feel satisfied in some sense that he had done all that he could do. And that's what really drove that guy. It seemed by the end that all the facts from the work he did after retiring it was a much compelling suspect than with anybody else. It was someone that knew her. There was motive there.

How did you try to define Box when you were getting into the character?

I saw in him a couple people that I knew growing up—a friend of my dad's and a relative of mine—who were kind of stoic individuals. They were really good at what they did and they didn't suffer fools. They also had tremendous patience, and sometimes there was a misunderstanding from others that there was a rudeness or a lack of compassion that was not at all true. There was a lot of slow, boring, grinding work and I think he was okay with that. The service that he was doing to the world was always on his mind. And, of course, the description of him in there, that Stone described him as a subtle beast. That's such a valuable thing to have as an actor. I trusted the person who who gave voice to that description. I trusted John Stone to have a pretty objective view of this guy that he had known.

This content is imported from YouTube. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

How did you interpret Box's walking out of the courtroom during Helen's closing argument?

I think there's a combination of different things. There was a feeling of his own failing, because in a way she was speaking the truth that this was the only suspect the police department has come to her with. There's a combination of that personal failure and also he had voiced to her before that that there was this other suspect, so he had to remove himself from that situation. In the courtroom at that specific moment, there was a need to remove himself from the situation that he had been complacent to.

It's clear that he's a good cop, but I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what went wrong in Naz's case.

Well, he failed to look at financial records that he talks to Helen about. I say these things were put in a box and no one saw them. He had clearly not looked at them. I think because there was such a mountain of evidence before.

This content is imported from YouTube. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Did you spend any time with detectives while working on this character?

I did. I spent some time with a retired homicide detective before we started shooting. Then I spent some time at the Sixth Precinct off Tenth Street in the West Village with the homicide detectives.

What did you learn during that?

It was interesting because I got to observe the way these detectives, who are clearly really good at their job, interact with one another. And also, the detectives that I spoke with, the human side of these guys is really what I took away. I couldn't go looking for Dennis Box, because he's the guy that is in the script, and I didn't want to try and throw some other person on this character who was already created on the page. There were things I learned in terms of the function of the precinct and watching these guys work and their camaraderie. I also tried to get to know them on a human level, because it's such a hard job. There's an armor that one just has to learn to be a police officer. To be a police officer in New York requires so much more than just we as a citizen need to walk around. Your job is to put yourself in this place where a horrible event has happened and try to figure it out. That's what you do, day in and day out. You have to have a certain distance to it. You can't let yourself go too far into it.

HBO

What was the moment, for you, that Box realized he had the wrong guy? It seemed like it was when he was on the stand.

Yeah, I think that reignites a small flame of doubt in him. Something happens in the court room there that makes him think that he has to re look at some stuff.

Now where things are left off, it seems like there's more to Box's story to be told.

Yeah, we see him walking after this potential suspect and that's it. I'd certainly be excited to learn more about him.

Would you be interested in playing this character again?

Of course, because the people who are putting together this story have been a privilege to work for. It would just be an extension of something that as an actor is a great gift. That's a no-brainer. I absolutely would.

Have there been any conversations with HBO?

Not with me. I have no idea. I think it's great that people are asking the question. But there has not been any conversation as far as I know.

At least they left it to where it could be a possibility.

Yes, so we shall see.

What did you learn from this whole series and this look in the criminal justice system?

I think that the story itself was a really important story to tell, and I think that's why so many people were into it. It functions on levels that we normally don't see when we're presented with dramas or stories within our criminal justice system. We don't see the entire vastness of it, and how slowly it moves and how crushing it is. The system does have the potential for hope if you're caught in it, but it takes, like in Stone's case, beyond a reasonable doubt and what that means and how we define it. Human beings have to be willing to not make judgements to satisfy a quota. It's always good to have a light shined on something that could stand some attention. The way the system works is fallible, because human beings are fallible and we're running it.

Matt Miller Culture Editor Matt is the Culture Editor at Esquire where he covers music, movies, books, and TV—with an emphasis on all things Star Wars, Marvel, and Game of Thrones.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io