Showing posts with label the west wing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the west wing. Show all posts

Tuesday, 25 October 2011

Tuesday Dialogue #2 - Joshua Lyman and Amy Gardner

Setting the scene: Joshua Lyman is Deputy Chief Of Staff in the Whitehouse. Amy Gardner is the Director of the Women's Leadership Coalition. Josh is good with politics, good with arguments. 

Being in a relationship with a woman is not a luxury he's allowed himself in a long time. He was able to ignore this problem until Amy Gardner came along. 


AMY
You owe me half a million dollars and a drink. 

JOSH
I paid for the drinks.

AMY
Alright, five hundred grand.

JOSH
What are you doing here?

AMY
I'm just hanging out. Why, do you live here?

JOSH
I do. I'm sorry I had to leave quickly before, I still can't tell you why.

AMY
Was it a matter of national security? 

JOSH
No. 

AMY
Would you tell me if it was a matter of national security?

JOSH
No.


AMY
Okay. You didn't talk to me much at school.

JOSH
You was having quite a lot of sex with Chris.

AMY
There were times I wasn't

JOSH
I studied a lot in school. I studied hard in high school, and at Harvard and in law school. My IQ doesn't break the bank and I wanted to do this, so I studied all the time. And -- I missed something, or it's like I skipped a year, Cause I never learned what you do after you think you like somebody, what you do next. And everyone did learn, a lot of other people anyway. I didn't walk out tonight. When my phone rings at eleven o'clock it's important. Not important to me, important-- and I'm not puffing myself so you that you're--

AMY
You know what? Maybe not so much for you with the talking. 

Care to share?

Saturday, 10 September 2011

Previously, On THE WEST WING: A Collection Of Articles and Interviews

I love 'The West Wing'. Perhaps, instead of this film blog, I should have just started a 'The West Wing' fan page. In fact, that's kind of what Kid In The Front Row is. Today I decided to look back at the things I have written about the show in the past couple of years, along with the interviews I have been very lucky to do with the cast and crew of the show. 


My hope was always to interview Aaron Sorkin, the creator, but thus far he has remained elusive, apart from a few kind notes/responses. But there's still the hope that, some time in the future when his schedule allows, we will finally get that interview.

 The Articles 


"Many years ago - my Uncle said to me, "You must watch The West Wing," and I thought yeah right, whatever. No-one tells me what to watch. But he was persistent and he lent me the first season. And I began watching it. My life changed."  

Here is a note I received from the show's creator, Aaron Sorkin, after that post.

"Front Row,

Thanks so much for the amazing tribute to the show. You really made my day and I'll be sending it around to everyone on the cast and crew list.

Thanks again,

Aaron"

Read the full article here.

 

December 20th 2010 - Previously, On The West Wing

Some thoughts I had after watching the entire series of TWW for the gazillionth time.

"THE WEST WING represented an idea. It's about 5.30am wake-up calls. It's about dedicating who you are to something bigger than yourself. It's about loyalty and doing something that matters. It's about working weekends and having dinner at 11pm on a Thursday night in the office because you have to get things done, because if you don't the world isn't going to operate properly come the morning. "

Read the full article here.


I always loved John Spencer's work on the show. After seven seasons of being in the company of a character, you really feel like you know them. There was something extremely poignant about the work of John Spencer. He carried a weight, a gravitas, while also being sensitive and warm. His final episodes before his real life (and then on screen) death, feature some of his greatest work. 

I spoke to Eli Attie about John Spencer. 


"John's death left a gaping hole in the middle of the show, a cavernous vacuum, and the rest of Season Seven was largely a reaction to that--a memorial to him and to the creative world he helped to shape and lead."
-Eli Attie 

Read the full article and Eli's touching words about John here.


INTERVIEWS

Eli Attie - Supervising Producer/Writer


Eli was a writer on the show from 2001 until the show ended, in 2006. In the final years he also served as a Supervising Producer.

"Because of my political background, I did contribute to lots of scripts beyond my own, during all five seasons I was on the show. Some of my favorite storylines were ones I didn't actually write."

Read the full interview here.


 
Josh played the role of Will Bailey. What I wrote in my intro to the interview is something I still stand by: Josh is one of the most underrated actors in the industry today.

"
Tommy is one of the great Producer/Directors out there, and for my money, no one writes like Aaron. But I give credit to John Wells and the writing staff for keeping TWW going as a really great, quality show for the remainder of its run."

Read the full interview here

Larry and Ed were two of the more memorable reoccuring character's from the show. But who are the actors who portrayed them? I decided to find out.



"Would I have liked a few storylines? Absolutely. But I would never trade in a moment I was on that show. For me, it was one of – if not the – best experience of my acting career so far."

Read the full interview here.

"I think, again, because of the fast turn around in television--one's best tool is oneself. Be as natural and reactive as you would be in that actual situation."

Read the full interview here.





Okay, so I didn't get to do a full interview with Aaron. But he did take the time to answer a question about writers block for the readers of KITFR.

"
Every time I finish something I think I'm never going to be able to write anything else. And every time I start something I think that this is the one where I'm going to get found out as a fraud."

Read the full answer here.

Care to share?

Monday, 25 April 2011

ELI ATTIE - Writer Interview

Eli Attie has written for 'The West Wing', 'Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip' and more recently, on 'House'. Prior to that, he worked for President Bill Clinton, and he was the chief speechwriter for Al Gore, from 1997, right up until that fateful day in 2000, when he conceded the presidency to George W. Bush.


How do you think working in politics prepared you for working in television? It seems to me that they're worlds apart, but maybe your experience is different.

There's an old joke, which I may have stuck on The West Wing, that politics is dog-eat-dog while Hollywood is the exact reverse. In fact, it turns out that they are indeed worlds apart. I spent my last few years in Washington as a speechwriter, and because that word sounds a lot like "screenwriter" I mistakenly thought the two jobs would be similar. Screenwriting is largely about structure -- what you reveal to the audience, and when -- and also emotion and character. Speechwriting, and politics in general, is a kind of extended argument about the issue at hand. I suppose in both professions you're dealing with some big personalities, but that's true of many professions. I'm lucky I thought they were similar; if I'd realized how radically different Hollywood was I might not have made the switch.

What made you decide to move into entertainment, was you looking to get away from politics?


It was really because politics got away from me. I was working for Al Gore until the final moments of the Florida Recount. I was angry, burned out, demoralized after a stolen election, and a friend jokingly suggested screenwriting, which I'd never even considered. It was more of a lark at first, I just thought I'd spend a year or two in LA and go back to Washington.

One if the most recognizable things about The West Wing, was the writing style of Aaron Sorkin, and of course-- it's not something that can be imitated. Did the writers feel a lot of pressure after he left the show?


No question about that. Aaron's an auteur, a singular genius. I think the show generally fell short when writers tried to imitate him, because that can't really be done.


For me, Season 5 was a tricky one, but 6 and 7 were incredible television. I enjoyed different writer's episodes for different reasons. I began to recognise the voices of different writers.. for example, an episode by you was different to an episode by Deborah Cahn. But I'm really interested to know how it would work. How and why do writers get assigned episodes; and did you have a lot of input in each episode?


In that post-Aaron period, John Wells would choose the writers of the individual episodes, based on a general rotation and also how many episodes he wanted a given writer to do. In my memory, it was usually a fairly blank slate when you got the assignment -- maybe a few plot points that the group had decided upon, but you could really shape the themes and storylines as you wanted (with John overseeing them all and making sure they actually worked). I guess I just wrote about the events and emotions and ideas that had stuck with me from my time in politics, and it was inevitable that the individual writer's episodes would reflect that writer's voice and style. Because of my political background, I did contribute to lots of scripts beyond my own, during all five seasons I was on the show. Some of my favorite storylines were ones I didn't actually write.


After The West Wing  - were you apprehensive at all about moving away from political material?

I was eager to do it, actually, because I'd said so much of what I wanted to say about that subject matter. And at the end of the day, you can't tell a story about politics with the story itself -- a character's overconfidence, a disintegrating friendship, whatever it is that you weave in between the government acronyms. Those stories don't change very much, whether you're putting those characters in the White House, or a hospital, or on a flying saucer for that matter. Well, okay, maybe it's different on a flying saucer.

It's still devastating to me how Studio 60 got cancelled after one season. I thought it was fantastic. But what lessons can we take from this? Next time around, how can we make sure the great shows get to stick around?

TV is a brutal business. Lots of great shows just don't find an audience, for hundreds of reasons -- marketing, scheduling, whether or not they hit the right moment in the zeitgeist. If I knew the real answer to this question, I'd start my own TV network.


Where do your writing ideas come from? What inspires you?

The best writing is at least a little bit autobiographical, I think. But ideas tend to come from everywhere -- something you read in the paper, something that happened to you the week before, a song you hear on the radio that reminds you of a time of your life. You just have to stay open to the ideas that are all around you, flying through the air, in a sense -- and it helps to be on a really tight deadline.

What music do you like? Do you listen to music when you're writing?

I listen to music constantly -- everything from acoustic blues and early Americana to British Invasion to punk rock to modern alternative rock -- but never when I'm actually writing. But sometimes, the mood or idea of a song can carry over into what you're writing.

When you were writing for Bill Clinton, or Al Gore, how much of that comes from inspiration? And how much of YOU is in what you write?


Not very much of the speechwriter should be in a political speech. You're trying to capture the spirit and pulse and passion of another person, right down to the punctuation. Plus, you have to remember that it's not your intellectual property at the end of the day. For someone like Al Gore, the speechwriter exists only because he's too busy to be hunched over a computer screen all day. That's not to say you can't have an influence, but that shouldn't be how you approach the task.

Have you written any feature film screenplays? Is that something you're interested in?

I do have one original screenplay that's set up at a studio right now, called "Smile Relax Attack," but it's a tricky indie-type film and I can't say if it'll ever get made. I've done uncredited rewrite work on some other people's movies, and I'd like to do more original work when I get the time.

I still like to hold on to the notion of screenwriting being an art-form. A singular voice. There's something heartbreaking about someone's screenplay getting re-writes, but I realize it's the nature of the industry. Do you think re-writes for the most part improve screenplays, or do you think there are times when they ruin what is on the page?

It really depends. Some movies are based on the voice of the author, and all you're going to do by tampering with it is ruin it. Those kinds of movies don't get rewritten very much to begin with. But most Hollywood movies are driven more by plot and action than any kind of voice. Sometimes, a little rewrite work can help a confused plot, or give a character a more distinctive personality, or simply slip in a few more good lines. It's not a bad thing in itself. Even a movie written by a committee can be preferable to one that doesn't quite make sense.

How do you, as a writer, get into the head of the characters?

If the character is strongly defined, they really can help you tell your story. The good thing about working on a TV show is that you spend hours and hours with your colleagues talking and arguing about what each character should say or do or feel, so you get to know them really well, and that knowledge can spill right onto the page. There's some mimicry involved too; sometimes the actor's voice and bearing has everything to do with how you write a certain line, or shape a certain scene. But often the story ideas start in your own head, from your own experience or observation, and then have to be transplanted into the character's world and idiom.

Hugh Laurie has such a specific way of talking in 'House' - is it difficult to get the tone right?

The voice of House is very much the voice of David Shore, the show's wonderfully funny and talented creator. I love writing for the character, but David is always right there, making sure the tone is pitch-perfect, and adding hilarious lines that make me look better than I should when my name flashes on the screen.


Who is your favorite writer?

That's hard to say. Paddy Chayefsky, maybe? Mamet? I've of course been lucky enough to work for some of my favorite writers in this business too. Which is why I wanted to work for them.

Do you have any plans to create your own show at some point?

No specific plans, and I've had such wonderful jobs as a staff writer on other people's shows, but it's something I'd like to try.

After your two very different careers -- in which do you think you have a better chance of inspiring people --- television, or politics?

I would have to say politics. Because TV and movies are, at the end of the day, entertainment; you should shut them off when the real people walk into the room. Politics can really transform people's lives, sometimes even save people's lives. The greatest episode of the greatest TV show is no match for the creation of Medicare.

If Al Gore had made it to The White House, I'm guessing your career would be a lot different now. Is that something you ever think about?

If I think too much about what it meant for the country, I'd be in therapy for the rest of my life, maybe even longer. In terms of my own career, you really never know where things will lead. I kind of stumbled into politics, just as I stumbled into Hollywood. Hard to think very much about the past when I barely have a grasp on the future.

I also spoke to Eli last year, about John Spencer, who played Leo McGarry in 'The West Wing' - you can read his poignant words HERE.

Care to share?

Tuesday, 19 April 2011

Five Question Interview With Actor PETER JAMES SMITH

Peter James Smith is a terrific actor whose work I have enjoyed for many years. He's done stints on all the shows you love-- CSI, 24, Friends, and as as a regular for seven years on The West Wing. Five question interviews are great because we get to skip there 'where did you grow up' talk and get right to the heart of the work, the acting. It's a topic that Peter knows plenty about.


You have this habit of turning up in nearly every TV show I watch. I think I mentioned to you that I was casually watching 'Friends' a few weeks back, and there you were! I am always interested to know what it's like, as an actor, to work for one or two episodes on such iconic shows as 'Friends', 'E.R.', '24', etc. How is the experience? Is it daunting to step into --- and is it sad when the job is over?


Every experience is different. On Friends, the thing I remember most from being on the set was how friendly Jennifer Anniston was. From E.R., I remember how efficient the whole process was. From 24, I remember staying up all night long and watching them film a car crash. That was cool.

These experiences aren't necessarily daunting--I think it depends a lot on the friendliness of the cast, crew and director of the show/episode. I have had some wonderful welcoming experiences and experiences where I felt less than welcome.

I do tend to go into a little depression after the end of any job I have--whether it's an on camera job or an on stage job.

I also remember little lessons I learn on each job and audition to help me on future jobs and auditions. Out of the jobs mentioned above, I think the lesson I use the most is the one I learned on the Friends audition. The lesson I learned there was that one's personality is at least equally as important as one's acting ability. If I can show a bit of my personality... my wit, my friendliness, my banter, my willingness to work with changes... I think it makes the people in the room want to work with me. They not only want someone that can do the job, but someone they would enjoy working with.



How do you like your relationship with the Director to be -- what is the ideal? Do you like to be left alone, or do you like lots of access to the director?

I'd love access to the director. However, I find--especially in television--there is so little time to get an amazing number of elements to come together, that the director may find the technical elements a lot more attention-consuming than the acting. So, most of the time I feel my job is to come in with my choices made. If the director wants any adjustments, it seems best if I'm able to do them quickly and smoothly.

There have been times where I do feel that the director takes the time to talk to me about what I'm doing --and I love when that happens-- but it feels like an exception rather than a rule.

I'd like to mention theater here. I think one of the things that a theater director told me that I think is brilliant is the director's job is to guide the actor into what the director wants the actor to do, but to do it in such a way that the actor thinks it was the actor's idea the whole time.

How is preparing for a stage role different to comparing for a screen role?

I think, again, because of the fast turn around in television--one's best tool is oneself. Be as natural and reactive as you would be in that actual situation.

Whereas, in theater, I feel one has time to build a different person entirely.

Why do you love acting?

Thanks for this question. It's been a while since I thought of it. I believe that acting, at it's highest, can put an audience into a character's shoes. In that way, a type of person that an audience member might not know much about, or perhaps even fear or dislike in some way--the audience could get to know this person and become more understanding of this type of person and, as a result, there is a little less ignorance and a little less prejudice in the world.

There are so many ups and downs when working in this industry. Especially for actors; one minute you have a heap of offers and projects, the next you're unemployed and nothing is coming your way. How do you deal with that? Has it gotten easier over the years?

It's funny. I don't think of how I deal with it. I just live my life in the every day and take what life does bring me--whether it's a heap of offers or a free day to go walking on the beach. It hasn't gotten easier. There is a certain level of acceptance... but there are also moments of panic when thinking about money or about making enough as a union actor to qualify for health benefits.

Care to share?

Tuesday, 29 March 2011

AARON SORKIN On 30 ROCK Video

For Sorkin/West Wing fans, this'll be the most enjoyable minute you've had in ages. For everyone else, I'll post something else soon!

Care to share?

Friday, 18 February 2011

WILLIAM DUFFY - Actor Interview

After a long spell in this industry, actors tend to go one of two ways-- bitter and grumpy, or wise and inspiring. WILLAM DUFFY is one of those who took the latter path. This interview was originally going to be very short, but William's knowledge and wisdom on the industry and the craft of acting are as fascinating as anyone I've ever spoken to, and I know a lot of actors.  So we ended up talking at length about his career.

He's best known for his work as Larry on THE WEST WING; and has also worked on many other TV shows, which we talk about in this interview. 


You have been acting for over twenty years -- What do you know now that you didn't know when you started?

Wow. How much space to do you have ? Hmmm, … there are a ton of things you learn as an actor over such a long period of time – both about yourself and about the business. One of the most important for me is: Don’t let being an actor drive you crazy. Especially with auditions. The nutty thing you learn, is that our success in this business (whatever that’s defined as), is almost completely dependent upon what other people think of your work – not necessarily on how talented you are. It’s why everyone has a different favorite movie, or actor, or director, or genre, etc. There’s no “formula” to success, or even booking a job. 2 + 2 doesn’t always equal 4 in show business, so you must learn quickly not to look for any logic. When I walk out of an audition – for example, I just had one today for a series regular on a pilot – if I know in my mind that I did at least an 8 out of 10 – which I think I did today - I’m happy, and I realize it’s now completely out of my hands. I did my part. If I feel I did 7 out of 10 or worse, I know I have no one to look to but myself, and I need to be better the next audition. Regardless, good or bad, I mentally walk away from it after it’s over. I NEVER dwell on the “W’s”: “Why didn’t they cast me?”, “What did I do wrong?”, “What were they looking for?”, “What did they think of me”, and of course, “Was I any good?” and “Will I ever work again?”.

I learned early on in my career to avoid these paralyzing questions because I know, for a fact, that they’re really unanswerable. How? Because early in my career in New York City, I think I did a smart thing: I was a reader for many casting directors. By sitting in that room with the “powers that be” I learned first hand: 1) What many actors do wrong in an audition room, and 2) that many times, believe or not, the best actor does not get the job. This latter one is a hard one to swallow, but very true. There are so many factors – subjective and objective – one’s so stupid you could not possibly imagine - that go into a casting decision, that you just can’t worry about it after you leave an audition. Learn to just go in, do your best, and let the rest take its illogical course !

What was the worst audition you ever had?

Hah, there’s too many to count ! It happens. We’re human. We mess up. Let’s see, early in my career, I remember auditioning for a 3-line role … and I said 2 of them wrong ! I’ve had auditions where they changed the sides to be read … and I didn’t know it. Uhhh … I once auditioned for a musical … but didn’t know that it was a musical (and I don’t sing) ! That was bad. I’ve lost my place in auditions. You try to be off the page with the lines as much as possible, but sometimes you just go blank. It happens. Oh God, one audition - I can’t say it was my worst audition – but it was memorable – was with a casting director (who shall remain nameless) who, after I finished what I felt was a really good audition for them, said to me, “Well, you seem smart enough to know when it’ll be time to quit acting.” … I’m serious. They actually said that. I was floored. I actually cracked up right in front of them and walked out. Needless to say, I did not book that job. … But about three weeks later, I did get the call that I was going to be recurring on “The West Wing”. (see part about “logic” in question #1 above !!)

I loved your character in 'The West Wing' -- but I am curious about what the experience is like to be a regular on a show, but to be one of the guy's behind the other guys. Is it frustrating not having bigger storylines?

Hey, we’re actors – we love the sound of our own voice ! Of course, the more lines the merrier ! No, seriously, I would have loved having more to say on TWW, but with 9 extremely talented series regulars having to be serviced, it was amazing to just be a part of it in any capacity. Many people wrote in, or wrote me asking to have more “revealed” about my character, Larry. Many even wrote in online forums about what they felt my “storylines” were. But as Aaron (Sorkin) once said, he saw Larry as representing many different people in the White House, not just one. The unique advantage to this, especially for a recurring character, like Larry, was that because TWW was such an ensemble oriented show, it allowed me to be written into many of the larger characters’ storylines, rather than just associated with only one of them. As a result, over the seven years, I had many scenes with virtually every series regular on the show. It was amazing to work with all that incredible talent. You learn so much. Would I have liked a few storylines ? Absolutely. But I would never trade in a moment I was on that show. For me, it was one of – if not the – best experience of my acting career so far.

William with Martin Sheen, Mary McCormack, and Josh Malina (with Chris Misiano behind them)

What is it like coming onto an established show, like "Heroes" or "The Event" and being part of one or two episodes? Is it daunting, or just a lot of fun?

For me, it’s always fun. However, I don’t mean “fun” in a relaxed, kicked back, party time way. Make no mistake: it’s work. It’s my job. I can honestly state that I have enjoyed every day I have worked as an actor; regardless of the movie, television show, commercial or theater project. I mean that. I have NEVER woke up and dreaded heading to a set or rehearsal. Now, some projects have been easier than others, and I have to admit that TWW was the most professionally run set I have ever been on – especially given the extreme budgets and pressures we operated under – so I was spoiled for seven years. But it also showed me the importance of being prepared for other shows I might work on - so that it could be a fun experience. While I feel I’ve always had great work ethics, I did learn from my seven seasons on TWW to respect any show I work on. What I mean by that is, I rarely audition for a TV show without having seen at least one episode. Pilots and/or movies are different, but if I can watch something the director has done before, or read the entire script, I will. Too many times, on TWW, guest actors would not have done their homework and watched an episode of the show and/or become familiar with the rhythms of the show. It’s the same when I work on a different, established show. I want to know the feel of that show, so that when I walk onto that set, with actors - probably most of whom I’ve never met before, who already have that feel - I know I can jump right in, and know what role I play in that feel. THAT makes it fun. For me, it’s imperative. For some of my friend’s, they never watch TV, yet audition and/or work a lot. That would be daunting for me. To work on ”Heroes” was vastly different than working on “The Event” and I made sure I watched those shows before I even auditioned. (Thank God for the Internet ! ) I often relate it to sports: I like to know a bit about the stadium and teammates I’m playing with before I start. That way, I can have fun creating and doing my craft and feel at ease to even experiment a little. Again, I saw too many days where new actors had no idea how the specific rhythms of TWW operated – and it dragged the whole day down. I just can’t allow myself to even think that could happen because then the “fun” is gone.

Why do you think these people got hired? The style was so specific, I'm surprised these people slipped through the net. But then, I guess with so many episodes and storylines, you can't guarantee every actor is prepared?

Oh no, it wasn't a matter of slipping through any net. The casting directors did an amazing job of supplying incredible actors for each episode. Because don't forget, in an audition, you're 1) reading with one person - usually a non-actor - even if it's a multi-person scene, 2) you rarely read the entire role, and 3) if you're a big enough name ... you don't audition, you're just offered the role. No, casting had nothing to do with it. We, as actors, are responsible once we book a job to prepare as much as possible for the shooting. However, during the first couple seasons, while audiences (and actors) were getting to know this new "style" of show, it was a very different experience for any guest actor - regardless of their resume - to come play with us. I think most actors prepared, but they prepared like they would for other shows, and not for our show. It's kinda like, you may know how to drive your car really well around town, because you do it a lot, but you now put yourself behind the wheel on a five-lane highway in Los Angeles with everyone doing 70+ mph, and it's a whole new ballgame ! I was just always surprised when a guest actor really had no idea what was expected. And I'll admit, as the show gained it's immense popularity, and the style and expectations of Aaron's writing became more familiar to actors, there were less and less problems.


Also, going back to what you said earlier - how some actors don't watch TV or films at all. That's fascinating to me. I meet actors like that, and I don't get it. That's like working as a chef and not having eaten a meal in five years. For me it's everything. 

Me too. It's like a musician who doesn't listen to music ! But everyone works differently. Again, there's no formula, there's no prerequisites. For me, as an actor, I like knowing who the characters are on the show I'm going to work on ! That way I can have an idea of who's in the scene with me, a little bit about story lines, and how I'm fitting in. Also, it's nice when someone in the casting room asks "Have you seen the show?" you can say "yes" rather than "no, I don't watch TV." To me, that's kinda like, "Wow, you're standing in front of us, looking to be hired, but you don't even believe in what we all do for a living?" I can understand if you don't care for a show. We don't love every show on TV. Heck, I've auditioned for and/or worked on shows I wasn't crazy about. But I have to at least watch the show to know whether I like it or not ! Again, that's my way of working and researching. It gives me more confidence when I walk in the room or on the set. Conversely, I mean, c'mon, let's be real: Martin Sheen never said, "Hey folks, can we break early today, I forgot to DVR, "CSI" !" But, it wasn't unusual between scene set-ups or takes, to have discussions about some shows, actors or episodes that people had watched recently or recommended. Hey,... it's not for everyone. I'm just amazed and baffled by actors who don't watch TV shows AT ALL. I can't do it .... but it's a choice by many actors - of all levels - from new to well-established ones.

But I think those actors have their limits; in that, sure they may have great techniques and ideas and intuition; but if you're thrown into an Aaron Sorkin TV show, or a Woody Allen movie, for example -- I think knowing that world is so important. What do you think?

I agree. Absolutely. Like I said, I know it is for me. Techniques, ideas and intuition are essential to acting - all acting. They're what help us express ourselves. And some actors are terrific at one thing, one character, one "type". They do it well, and when you cast them, you know exactly what you will get. And they can be extremely successful - especially in TV where there is very little time to develop characters very far from ourselves. They'll work all the same types of shows. Many times casting or a director will say, "bring me Actor X - they do this type of role well, and I don't have to worry about them". So yes, there's definitely a need for actors who "have their limits" as you said. But, to paraphrase Stellar Adler: imagination is what separates all of us. So for me, and I can only speak for myself, I can't utilize my unique imagination unless I have a feel for how the project, director and even the network, operates. In TV, I don't audition for a drama like "Castle" the same as I do for a drama like "Southland", or a comedy like "The Office" the same as a comedy like "Two and Half Men". A show on TNT is different than a show on ABC. I don't prepare for a Quentin Tarantino movie audition the same as a Woody Allen movie audition. But I won't know the difference if I don't stay current or at least brief myself beforehand. So for me ... watching TV or movies - that's part of how I prepare and stimulate my imagination. ( Though, I'm not sure Stanislavski included watching "Two and Half Men" in "An Actor Prepares", but I'm sure the gist is in there ! )

And I feel it's even more crucial for a show like TWW. You take writers like Pinter, Mamet, Shepard, Shakespeare and Aaron Sorkin, who are detailed rhythmic language writers - where every word is chosen carefully .... if you don't know that going into an audition or onto a set .... you're screwed. See, I think the producers of TWW were smart. I think they chose our ensemble cast because 1) they knew we knew how to actually be an ensemble cast - because almost everyone of us was highly trained in the theater, and 2) they knew because of that theater training, we knew how to pace the dialogue. Many of us - from series regulars (Brad, Joshua) , to recurring (myself, Clark Gregg, Tim Busfield, Ron Ostrow), to guest actors (Noah Emmerich) - had all worked together with Aaron on previous theater projects, like "A Few Good Men" and knew exactly what was expected. Also - this may give you a little insight into Aaron's writing - he writes musically. Each scene of each episode is part of a concert, and each actor plays like an instrument. But for the music to work, you have to hit every note as written - or in this case - say every word as written. You don't ad lib Mozart ... you don't ad lib Sorkin. And if you don't know this going in, if you haven't memorized every word as written, your part - like any instrument played in an orchestra - stands out and throws everything off by a beat or so. And the piece as a whole falls short. Couldn't be more obvious then when you watch any of the now famous West Wing "Walk & Talks". The way each actor (instrument) flows down a hallway delivering their lines (music) with other actors (instruments) darting in and out of the scene adding their quick contributions. It may sound kooky, but if you've watched it and/or lived it ... it's true. In fact, I interviewed Aaron once - a la James Lipton - live, for a charity event for my theatre company for a couple hours, and we talked about this very thing. I told him I would sit at our table reads of each episode and watch him physically conduct with his hands many of the scenes as they were being read. He agreed. Hmmm ... I think I may have gotten a bit off point, but what I'm trying to say is that "knowing that world" as you put it, can only, in my opinion, better you as an actor; because it allows you to use your imagination with your other tools (technique, ideas, intuition) to be creative at a higher level.

A thing that happens a lot with actors I know, most of whom are very talented; is that they feel stuck. They're not getting roles, their confidence is dropping, and the keys to their careers seem outside of themselves. Have you been in that situation? And what advice do you give for getting out of it?

(Sigh) Yeah, the dreaded “business” side of “show business”. We ALL experience that “stuck” feeling at one time or another. And, many times, more than once. Earlier, I mentioned how we are at the mercy of “the powers that be” in this business and how crazy and frustrated it can make us. Consequently, we, as artists, will experience some of our biggest highs and biggest lows in life from this business. Professionally, personally, financially, emotionally. The trick is to somehow keep it in perspective. And to that, I really have no one answer.

I truly adore this profession, but I feel one key to surviving in this business is to not live in it with blinders on. Because when it comes right down to it: it is a business. And a harsh one. And as such, you must make your own definition of “success” and make it a realistic one. Otherwise, I feel you’ll never enjoy what you do. And realistically, this business tells us “no” a lot more than it tells us “yes”. Make peace with that. My ex-wife (a non-actor) once said that she couldn’t understand why anyone would become an actor just because they loved the acceptance and reward people give them for their work … when it’s a profession that gives you more rejection of your work than in any other profession ! … Kinda true.

I too have many friends who are far more talented than me and struggle or have left the business due to lack of “success”. Again, it goes back to: the best actor does not always get the role. It’s a very sad truth. And these days, it’s extremely difficult to make your sole living as an actor because available roles are decreasing. With more established movie actors doing TV shows, or being offered roles, many established TV actors are doing smaller TV roles, which in turn affects every level of TV actor below that. Combine that decrease in available roles, with pay rates decreasing and less shows being shot, and it’s no wonder many actors – especially those who look to TV as a main financial source are, as you put it, “feeling stuck” and experiencing “their confidence dropping”. Again, my advice is to realistically define “success”, and what “making a living as an actor” means to you. Why are you an actor?

I try to work on the “show” side of “show business” as much as I can. I train, take classes, work on small projects – all to keep my instrument tuned and my mind creatively active. I find as many ways to stay creative as I can as I strive toward my definitions. But I do it both inside AND outside of acting – because I know I’m usually unemployed as an actor more than I’m employed as one. For me, when I’m not acting, I tutor kids having trouble academically. It’s amazing how showing them how to creatively look at their homework keeps my creative acting side alive. I also have a financial background, so I utilize my creativity even in a mathematical lens. I also write and play music, I draw, and, … most importantly, I find as much theater to do as possible. I was trained on the stage in New York City, and I think ANY stage – from community theater to Broadway - is an invaluable venue to work on. I am fortunate to belong to an amazing theatre company here in Los Angeles. We are constantly doing readings, workshops and main stage productions. I find theater a terrific playground to work on roles, feel the excitement of creating with other artists, hone my memorization skills, and get jazzed performing live. I’m currently doing the world premiere of a provocative play by Academy Award Nominated writer, Nicholas Kazan, and I am loving every moment of the process. Making no money doing it, … but loving the feeling of being a creative actor !

I love your passion! And I love the honesty, too. "I’m usually unemployed as an actor more than I’m employed as one" -- that's not something you hear from actors, often. Most actors I know try to appear as if they are always employed! But then, I guess that is the hard part -- when someone says, "what are you working on right now?" How do you answer that when everything is slow? 

See, I think you have to be honest - especially to yourself. It goes back to my thoughts on being realistic about why you are or want to become an actor. If it's to be regularly employed ... choose again. I was an accountant - a CPA in fact. I could easily be regularly employed as a partner in a large firm or corporation by now. Making far more money than I make as an actor. But, I wasn't fulfilled creatively or happy. So I left and did what I found to be a new career that I love. But I know my happiness can't be dependent on being regularly employed because it's very VERY rare to be consistently employed as an actor year after year. The list of such people is tiny. In fact, I think I read that over 90% of SAG and AFTRA's membership is unemployed at any one time. So again, be realistic ! Look at my time on TWW. I recurred for all seven seasons - I worked on about 50 episodes - from the pilot to the final episode. I did roughly 1/3 of all the episodes in that series. Sounds amazing right ? But that means I didn't work on about 2/3 of them ! For the majority of the show's run ... I wasn't employed ! I was looking for other work until they wrote Larry back in.

Please, every actor knows that we are all always looking for a job - even when we have one. And every actor knows that times are slow. Actors trying to impress other actors makes me laugh - it's senseless; we all know what the business is like every day ! We ask each other all the time: "Are you auditioning a lot?", "Is it slow for you?", etc. And the answer is always the same: "I wish I was auditioning more". I just tell them I’m keeping busy in my other creative outlets – which is true. Looking for work is just as much a part of being an actor as the acting itself is. We have to face it, live with it or think about changing professions.

And I think that question is linked to the guy who says "you know when to give up acting," -- I think half of the work in this industry, especially for people starting out or going through a tough time, is convincing the non-industry people in their lives that they're not talentless and wasting their time. It shouldn't matter what your neighbour, or the-old-school-friend-you-see-in-the-mall thinks of your work, but it can often rankle. You can say "Hey, I was Larry in The West Wing," -- but how else can people fend off the naysayers and the negative people? 

Nah, you can't let what people outside of the industry say get to you. I'm not saying don't care about them - couldn't be further from the truth - some are huge parts of our lives. I'm just saying it's very difficult for many non-industry people to understand this profession - especially being an actor. Many people think we are ALL like the actors they see on TV or in the movies ... or that every actor works all the time. It's not their fault - they have no real frame of reference. To most, if you call acting your profession, then you should be employed and working in that profession, right ? They work in their profession - be it plumber, CEO, salesperson, cashier, insurance broker, whatever. They were trained, found a job and now work; you were trained ... where's your job ? Makes sense ... just not in "show-biz world." I really can’t spend the time convincing someone to believe in an illogical profession ! I’d lose ! The important thing I try to do is have a good support system around me – comprised of both industry and non-industry people. It keeps me sane. I’m fortunate: My immediate family is fantastic. They always support me. Do they actually approve of my choice of profession ? … Don’t know. But they support my decision 100%. And that’s more important. Same with my non-industry friends: couldn’t be more proud of me and supportive. They love that I’m doing what I want to do. Can’t ask for anything better.

There’s too much negativity and rejection in this business already, so why would I want more of it in my non-business life and friends. To your question: I don’t try to “fend off the naysayers and negative people”. I just nod and accept them. Hell, they’re right ! What I do IS crazy! But I love it.

Care to share?

Thursday, 23 December 2010

Reflecting On John "LEO MCGARRY" Spencer

"Johnny,  it seems we hardly knew you. We love you, and we miss you."
-Martin Sheen.

We were fortunate to get some poignant, adventitious glimpses of Leo McGarry -- some of John Spencer's finest work -- in episodes that were originally screened after the unexpected death of the actor who played him, John Spencer. As if by pure luck, John's performances in his final episodes are some of the finest in the history of THE WEST WING. But looking at his acting career, you realize: it has nothing to do with luck. John Spencer was always getting better, as an actor. Leo McGarry was his masterpiece.


This week I have had the privilege of talking to Eli Attie, who was a Supervising Producer and Writer on The West Wing. Here's what he had to say about John.

"The West Wing had an extraordinary company of actors. Not typical TV actors, the people who move to LA as teenagers to primp and pose and become stars, but deeply serious actors, who had honed their craft in NY theater and were unbelievably dedicated to the process, to the work itself. John had spent decades in that world, and even among our great, great cast, he had a weight of experience, a way of owning his place in a scene, that was in many ways equivalent to the authority Leo had as White House chief of staff. His role was unquestioned. There was an accumulated strength and wisdom to John's acting. Some actors find their way to a performance; John knew precisely what he was doing from the first take, always. Like Leo, there was no room for stumbling around. And no need."

At the beginning of Episode 10, in Season 7 - the episode begins with Martin Sheen addressing the audience, and sharing the news that we would be witnessing the final few months of John Spencer's work. The episode that proceeded this statement was one of Spencer's finest. The Santos For President campaign was running out of patience with Leo McGarry-- who was stumbling over simple questions whilst rehearsing for the Vice-Presidential candidate debate, with the staff worrying over his health and ability to fulfill the role. 

It's a heartbreaking episode because we see the powerhouse of Leo McGarry, for the first time in seven seasons; looking extremely vulnerable. He looks this way until the final moments when his performance in the debate outshines all expectations; and we (and his staff) realize he's been manipulating the media the whole time. This episode is a shining example of the brilliant complexity that Spencer brought to his work.

"I went to the small wake that his family held in New Jersey right after he died. Just a few of us made it; the weather was awful. It was my first Catholic wake, and as the tradition dictates, there was a big corkboard covered with family photos of John throughout his life. In his West Wing days, his face was like a novel--so much complexity and depth of expression. Simple reaction shots of John, while the other characters were talking, could tell as much story as the words.  And looking at that board, I remember thinking: he had that same amazing character actor's face when he was six, he was just waiting to grow into it. Which might be why his career really came alive later in his life."

John's final two episodes on The West Wing were a fitting tribute to the man - which is especially moving considering this was never their intention. Episode 12 of Season Seven was written by Eli, and featured a remarkable scene between Leo and President Bartlet (played by Martin Sheen). Of course, Eli Attie wasn't to know that this would be their final scene together; but we can only thank the Gods that these two wonderful men got to share the screen one final time. There was something powerful about seeing these two masters (fictionally, as characters, and in reality, as actors) on screen together. They compelled me and held my attention in a way so few can. I wrote about this in my previous article about the show, "They brought a gravitas; a weight, that you rarely see in television, or in life. We need them. They represent the type of leadership and eldership we all need, within our selves and from those around us."


I asked Eli, "On screen; Leo had a real gravitas; he was an elder to those around him. Could the same be said of John Spencer?"

"I think on an acting level that was true, absolutely. Just in terms of age and experience, both Martin and John had that kind of gravitas, a very well-earned respect from the whole cast and production. But personally, I think of John as someone who was always laughing and joking, would always greet you with a hug--a more openly emotional person than Leo. Leo quite literally had the weight of the world on those shoulders. John could afford to be looser, more casual, more of a thoroughly creative spirit. John was an artist, after all, which I don't think Leo could ever have been, or would have fully understood."

The final episode that John appears in, is the first episode where Donna and Josh kiss. The Santos team are celebrating gains in the polls; and they are all in high spirits. We see a brief shot of Leo, in the mix -- and it steals your attention. There he is, full of life -- not only do we see Leo McGarry unusually happy, but we see a glimpse of the John Spencer that the West Wing crew knew, the artist and creative spirit that Eli just described. It's touching. It's only a couple of seconds -- but it's a more moving few seconds than most TV shows manage in their entire runs.


The episodes that followed dealt with the death of the character, Leo McGarry, which was made more real and emotional by the fact that we were mourning the death of John Spencer, too. For us, as viewers, it was deeply sad. For the cast and crew of The West Wing, they had lost a close friend. In some strangely poignant and beautiful way, it made for some of the greatest television ever made. But it also meant an end for the show.

"One of the reasons there couldn't have been an eighth season of the show, in my view, was John's absence.  When I think of that final run of episodes, dealing with Leo's death, and of course John's as well, I think of Brando in the final scene of The Godfather Part II. he's not actually there, but you feel his power, you feel the life-force that he was, and everyone is still reacting to him. John's death left a gaping hole in the middle of the show, a cavernous vacuum, and the rest of Season Seven was largely a reaction to that--a memorial to him and to the creative world he helped to shape and lead. So his death of course changed everything. I have a hard time separating the personal aspects--gathering to share memories at his home right after his passing, the wake and the funeral and the memorials--from the writing and filming of those final shows. We grieved through the work."

With thanks to Eli Attie. 

Care to share?