IR Print Interview: Michael Sheen For “The Good Fight” [CBS All Access – S3 – CBS TCA Winter Press Tour]
Michael Sheen has played the gamut of characters within the structure of his career. From the texture of “Underworld” and “Tron: Legacy” all the way to the essence of Showtime’s “Master Of Sex”, his characters always require a balance (or perhaps imbalance) of personality to give them a unique spin. After conducting a panel with his fellow actors at the CBS All Access TCA Press Day for the new season of “The Good Fight”, Sheen spoke with The Inside Reel about nuance, finding the character and knowing how to walk the line.
Was there a different approach to playing Roland Blum?
Michael Sheen: There’s something incredibly liberating about playing a character like this. Anything that’s put in front of him, he just pushes it over. He can say whatever he wants to say, and just says things to provoke and outrage. The pendulum has swung the other way, and I’m loving it.
On a demonic scale, how does he fare?
MS: The temptation was to talk of him as being Mephistopheles, a devil kind of character. But it actually goes beyond that. The devil was born out of the god Pan. There’s something kind of pagan about it and I love that. I am trying to still play with that a bit more so I’m trying to look a bit more like a forest creature. So there’s an appetite rather than putting up a moral or ethical judgment on him. He’s something that goes a bit deeper and hopefully people will be both attracted to him and repelled by him at the same time. Because he does go very deep into something very primal.
The character does dwell in a certain world of thought.
MS: It’s something very human. I make a joke about it but it’s true…I actually prefer being him. Because he is touching on things that we all have. When people often ask actors who are playing the bad guy, “Oh you must be having so much fun!” Everyone loves a good bad guy. It’s slightly lazy of me thinking like that but there’s something truthful in that we go around living a partly repressed life in order to all get along with each other. That’s what the most civilizations are, isn’t it? But then you have these characters who come along who are essentially parasitic. They’re thinking “As long as everyone else is keeping civilization going on, I can just wreck things”. And there’s something incredibly attractive about that. I think at the moment there’s a lot of disruptors…there’s a lot of people breaking down those pillars of what everyone else is trying to keep up. That’s a scary thing. And so to play a character who is doing that…that both makes people go “I wish could do that. I spend most of my day wanting to do that stuff but I don’t do it.” We are both attracted to that and repelled by that. Roland is definitely one of those characters. He fulfills two sides: on the one hand, he’s the trickster who remakes the world…who comes along and says we have to throw everything up in the air because things are too settled…that it’s unfair in society, both during the past Trump election and the Brexit stuff…about that false sense, that there’s an illusion of how the world is, and we need to throw it all up in the air and remake it. Roland represents the positive aspect of that but also the negative aspect of that, which is just about eroding things that we all really need in order to live a life and not be eating each other.
The mythology of Pan as a metaphor is all about testing people. You’ve explored many characters in “Tron: Legacy”, “Masters Of Sex”, but it is all about the mask…
MS: It’s the idea of tempting in the garden. It goes back to god demons…the idea that the devil comes and goes, but do you want to know more? Do you want to just accept the way things are…or do you want to find out a little bit more? I can help you do the questions, but be curious. A lot of the qualities that we think of as being positive qualities, un-progressive qualities, used to be kind of contained within the idea of the devil and the saint in…and it was because a saint is a Christian construct based on Pan, which has much more to do with appetite and nature as well as its healing qualities…
An expression of culture.
MS: Exactly. So I love that quality of that character. In fact in the first scene Diane [Christine Baranski] has with Roland this season…she learns something from him. Whether he does it on purpose or not, we don’t know but he offers something, a bit of a bit of wisdom, She picks up on that and that becomes a major power of what happens in the season. He is this character who seems like he’s part of the enemy but actually he’s the key to maybe understanding and moving things along.
So with him is what you see what you get or does he have the symbolic side as well?
MS: He’s both total surface in that what you see is what you get, he’s totally that. But he’s also totally a mystery in darkness and you’ll never know. I like the idea that you sort of feel like, “Oh he’s just old service”. And then you realize “Oh no he’s not old service”. It’s very hard to know,
Did embodying the character come together quickly?
MS: It all happened very quickly. I found myself walking into the courtroom for my first scene on the show, having to play this huge, larger than life character. Normally I would, certainly for the characters I played based on real people, spend a massive amount of time doing research. I wasn’t able to do that here. It was like, “Here you go.” And I remember walking through those doors that first day having to kind of essentially take over the whole thing. I was terrified. I’m a confident character usually. You know as an actor you’re always worried you’re going to be found out. I’ve always pretended that I know. For the entire first week on this show, I was genuinely convinced I was going to be fired, that someone was going to stop me and go, “You know what? That’s a good effort, I admire your chutzpah for what you’re trying to do, but ultimately this is a professional job and people have to watch this. It’s just not going to work. Sorry.” Really. Funny enough, at the end of the first week, I had a message from the Kings’ assistant saying, “Uh, Robert would you like to have…uh a word with you.” And I was like “This is it, This is where I get fired.” I was absolutely convinced that was going to be packing my bags and going. That was terrifying.
By Tim Wassberg
IR Print Interview: Aaron Harberts & Gretchen J. Berg (Co-Showrunners) For “Star Trek – Discovery” [CBS All Access – CBS TCA Winter Press Tour]
Star Trek is an interesting quandary as it balances modern themes with a sci-fi perception set in utopian society. With such anticipation coming out the gate as well as some changes in showrunner structure for the new CBS All Access “Star Trek: Discovery”, it can be a battle to keep focus and tone exactly where it needs be. After sitting on a panel at the CBS TCA Day with showrunners from other CBS shows discussing politics and social issues, Exec Producers/Showrunners Aaron Harberts & Gretchen J. Berg spoke with The Inside Reel about the continuing process and inherent themes of the burgeoning series.
Can you talk about the initial misdirect in the series in regards to the focal point of the storyline?
Aaron Harberts: The joy is in the journey. If that’s something you’re invested in, keep watching because I think that hopefully you will enjoy what we’re going to do.
Gretchen J. Berg: I think once you watch [the 10th episode], you’ll see the context that we’re playing in. Another theme from the back half is second chances.
But people do think they know where you are going to go…
GJB: I love hearing the theories. I mean, I really enjoy it. So keep the theories coming.
Are you going to be disappointed if they guessed it right?
GJB: I will be disappointed if somebody comes up with a story that’s much better than we ever could have come up with. (laughing)
AH: What we’ve always said is audience theories range from hot to cold, but all are pretty phenomenal. I would say that people may know where this is going.
If season one is getting closer to the traditional Federation, could a second season be closer to a traditional Star Trek feel than perhaps this one has been thus far?
AH: We’re excited to explore that in season two. I mean, here’s the good news. Last year, obviously, [there was] very well documented challenges that this show had. We were sort of shot out of a cannon. Gretchen and I inherited the show. And we ran like Indiana Jones with that boulder crashing down behind us. This year, we have a fantastic creative team in place. Everybody knows each other. Our crew in Toronto is, and always has been, phenomenal. But we have time this year. We have time to do things like more away missions..newer planets…stories that might fall a little bit more into a framework of allegory that people love to get from Trek. But we will always continue to have that overarching serialized threat. But the second season is not a war season.
GJB: We have three episodes percolating [currently]. The outline for the first one is out to our producing partners.
AH: We are very interested in tackling themes of faith next year. Science versus faith. We’re interested in different points of view on that. And we’re still hashing out what we want to attack. We’re in this interesting pocket of time. We’re 10 years, now 9 years before TOS. And there are lots of things in terms of TOS canon that we want to do some nods to. And we’re still figuring it out.
Any second thought about the use of Klingon spoken on the series so far?
AH: There are a lot of different opinions on it. And I think because the story that we were telling about the Klingons, and how they wanted to make sure that they kept their race pure– from a storytelling point of view — made sense to us that when we cut to them, if what they wanted to do was remain Klingon and stay Klingon and keep away from everybody else, we couldn’t have them speaking English. We had to hear their language. So, I still stand behind that decision. I know some people didn’t like it, but I think it makes the best sense for the story.
GJB: I’d say in the back half, the audience will see fewer subtitles. There will be a little less reading involved, but yes, we had to stick to that decision for this first chapter.
So is there a tonal difference in the 2nd half of season one?
AH: Listen, I know this sounds corny, but the back half to me is this amazing roller coaster. Jonathan Frakes [Editor’s Note: Frakes played Riker in TNG and directed the “First Contact” & “Insurrection” TNG films] directed episode 10, and it is a bang out of a circus cannon, in a good way. It’s so fun. It’s emotional. There are highs and there are lows, and just buckle up.
GJB: We’ve known him and worked with him since we were really young writers on “Roswell” and he was an executive producer. We have a friendship that goes back almost 20 years. The joie de vivre and the talent that he brought to the set — this is a hard show to do. It is grueling. And he did episode 10, and when he stepped on the set, and again, this is not to say that our crew isn’t giving 100% and our cast isn’t giving 100% every day, but there’s a point in the middle of the season where everybody’s dragging. We’re dragging. They’re dragging. He came in at just the right moment and electrified the room. And when he left…it was just a triumph for him. And for the cast, there’s really no one else, aside from Roxann Dawson, who’s also a phenomenal director [Editor’s Note: Dawson played Lt. Torres on ST: Voyager], who can give our cast insights into what the future holds for them as members of an iconic franchise.
By Tim Wassberg
Having spent many years exploring the nooks, crevices and beauty of The Hamptons on “Royal Pains”, showrunner Michael Rauch heads towards the city and network with his follow up series “Instinct” on CBS starring Alan Cumming. After completely a panel for his new series with his actors at the CBS TCA Winter Press Day, Rauch spoke with The Inside Reel about tone, the building process and the allure of New York City.
Can you talk about the perspective of “Instinct” as a series?
Michael Rauch: [It is all things] combined, both nature and nurture, [and for the lead character] it formed a very specific type of way of looking at the world. What we talk about in the pilot is abnormal behaviors and, for him, he felt abnormal as a child and gradually as he got older realized that who gets to define what’s normal and what’s abnormal? That maybe being abnormal is actually normal and that’s not a stigma. That’s a big part of his way of looking at the world and, hopefully, for people who watch the show, the same thing which is that just because society defines you in a certain way doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with you. It’s much less than, say, Benedict Cumberbatch in Sherlock where you really feel like that guy could be on meds — we don’t go into it that much although, I’d love to have the success of that show.
You described “Instinct” as a little show, but you’re a procedural on CBS.
MR: I’ll tell you, from my own personal viewpoint, the shows I’ve done have always been underdogs. They’ve always been smaller shows. So, we are on CBS. I know the beauty, the power, and the pressure of that. At the same time, we’re a mid-season show, we’re not called S.W.A.T. or S.E.A.L. team. As much as people love Alan, I don’t think he has the recognition that say a David Borealis –- who is amazing –- does, or Shemar Moore. These are guys who bring a giant audience. We’re also a little show because we have a gay male lead which I think is very non-mainstream. So I think that there are a lot of things, not against the show, but [some that] don’t necessarily make it easy to promote. It’s a light, hopefully, funny procedural. But that’s the type of thing that on CBS there isn’t a lot of. I think that in terms of the shows that are easy to kind of put forward [are done] just by a title — again, like a S.W.A.T. We don’t have that. We don’t have people driving hummers and mowing down people. So all the things that feel traditionally like CBS procedural meat and potatoes, this has a lot of more peculiar things going for it. That’s part of why we’re mid-season, and more of a character show. I think always the odds are against a show like that.
What was CBS’ reaction to having a show with a male gay lead?
MR: Incredibly supportive. I think it’s a big reason why they bought the pitch. My whole thing from the beginning, and I talked about it with Alan before we both signed on was, even though this is a gay male lead, the show is not about that. That’s number five or six about what makes this guy who he is. And this isn’t a show about gay marriage. It’s not a show about being a gay detective. We really don’t deal with the obstacles much in season one. If we’re lucky enough to have longevity, we’ll get into it and we want to be authentic to it, but it’s more just a piece, an element of the show as opposed to this is what the show is about.
Can you discuss themes of ambition too because with “Royal Pains”, the doctor there wanted to balance the lives that he had as well. Could you talk about that and the aspect of ambition within Alan’s character, but how that’s sort of reflective of “Royal Pains”?
MR: Absolutely. I think ambition is such an interesting thing because we all have our own independent ambition, we have a societal ambition and sometimes they get out of whack. So one of the conflicts for Alan’s character, for Dillon, is that he went into the CIA to please his father. Little did he know that he had his father’s genius for being an operative. It was a surprise to him and a surprise to his father, and it is the thing that drives him. At the same time, Dillon met his husband, fell in love, and his partner basically said, “If you want to live that life, I can’t be with you. Because I don’t want to be with someone who I’m going to wonder, “Are they coming home or not every day.” And so, Dillon said, “Great. I’ll quit.” And then little did he know that he misses that ambition. He needs that. He needs to fight evil. He needs to make the world a better place. So he’s in the situation where the thing he needs most is in direct conflict with the person he needs most. So it’s an ambition to be a successful partner in a relationship versus an ambition to what drives him and satisfying that. Yeah.
Could you talk about the tonal aspect? With “Royal Pains”, you guys were able to do a little bit of slapstick and then it got real dark.
MR: I love “Royal Pains” and when we first started that show, we started as a much darker show. It was very important to me and to us for it to be a show that made you feel better. I think that was a big part of its success. And I think that there’s so much great television out there that is dark, and anti-hero, and apocalyptic. I feel like there’s not a lot of TV out there that you can go along for a ride – either watch with your kids or just feel good about the world when you dine. “Royal Pains” was something that we really tried to do that with. Even though we had dark stories sometimes, we tried to balance it with humor and with character, with a humanity, and characters that you cared about. And it’s very similar in this which is we have darkness, hopefully not too much darkness. We have snakes. We obviously have murders. I’ve never done that before. I’ve never killed anyone before on a show…it’s really weird.
Even on “Royal Pains”?
MR: People died, but no one was murdered on “Royal Pains”, but people died. It’s a lot of pressure and responsibility to do that kind of show. There’s a scene in the pilot which I think they showed in one of the promos where Alan and Boyan is standing over a dead body. A guy had been stabbed 52 times and you see all the stab wounds, but they haven’t bagged her yet. To me that scene works and yet it was a challenge. I felt a lot of pressure, we felt a lot of pressure making it because these two people are in front of each other – over a corpse. So, if it doesn’t work then the show doesn’t work, but I think the scene worked. I think that scene, in a way, is a microcosm of what we’re trying to in the show which is balance, crime, and stakes with being able to have fun at the same time.
Did you have to workshop Dillon as a character in order to get it right?
MR: Marc Webb directed the pilot and he’s a terrific director. And Marc and I, and Alan and Bojana had a six-hour rehearsal one day in Marc’s apartment. And that just got everything to click.
What about your table read?
MR: For the network, for the network president, everyone there – everyone is nervous and terrified. No one is moving back and forth. No one is creating any dialogue together. And all of a sudden everyone is saying the words out loud.
Was there a turnkey moment in the pilot? Or during the reading?
MR: I wanted to basically jump out a window after that table read because it was horrible. Because I hadn’t worked with any of the actors. They’re nervous, everyone is doing it in their accents. Alan is playing an American. Bojana is playing an American. They all have accents. The only one with an accent too hard to use is Naveen. So, it was just like Frankenstein’s monster and horrendous. Then we had a cast dinner afterward and I was thinking about how quickly my career would end after we shot the pilot. Then we started rehearsals. Once we were able to really talk about the characters together, Alan ran upon their rhythm.
The locations you guys had in The Hamptons when you shot “Royal Pains” were just amazing. But in New York City, you have to have those individual, very identifiable things. Can you talk about New York City as a character, and how that integrates into the elements of story?
MR: That’s a really good question, because we actually hired the same location person – his name’s Mike Fucci – who did Royal Pains. He has done the pilot and the series so far, the first season, for “Instinct”. He understands, as he did in “Royal Pains”, that, even though things look very similar, from episode to episode, they also have to be different. I was born in Manhattan. I’ve grown up in New York my whole life. We’ve shot on every borough, and we will continue to, so that we don’t just see the Sex and the City New York. We see the Bronx. We’ve shot in the Bronx a couple of times. We see Brooklyn, or stages of Brooklyn. We’ve shot in Queens, Staten Island.
Is there any locations that you can talk about that you really enjoyed on this one?
MR: My favorite location, we just did the finale there. We were in Long Island City on the East River, facing the Manhattan skyline, on the other side of Roosevelt Island. And just being able to have the background — I mean, my favorite building in Manhattan is the Chrysler Building. So, having the Chrysler Building, and the UN, and the Empire State Building as a backdrop…you can’t replicate that anywhere in the world. It’s the most iconic thing. But, honestly, being anywhere in New York, you feel the texture and the energy of the city. And, although our tone is slightly elevated –- we’re not going to show graffiti, we’re not going to show some of the filth that’s there –- but, at the same time, we really want to let New York be a character in the show.
By Tim Wassberg