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
Comedy can be a fickle beast and knowing how to play the beats plus moving in rhythm with your fellow actors is essential. Whether attacking single camera on “Cougar Town” and “Felicity” or multi-cam with “The Drew Carey Show”, Ian Gomez has an inherent intention for getting it right. After conducting a panel with his fellow actors at the CBS TCA Press Day for the new series: “Living Biblically”, he spoke exclusively with The Inside Reel about process, texture of character and the sometimes trickiness of tone.
Being on the set of ”Cougar Town”, I still remember there was so much energy. Could you talk about sort of the approach with this kind of material? Because it’s very tonal.
Ian Gomez: It’s a fine line that the writers had to walk because ultimately, it has to be a funny show, and it’s about religion. So they didn’t want to make fun of religion, nor did they want to be preachy. So it’s how do you do that, make it funny, make it watchable, and make the characters likable? That’s a really hard thing to do as opposed to on Cougar town, where they’ll be drinking and jokes about dating and kids and stuff like that. So the task here is much harder.
As Father Gene, you’re sort of the interpreter of rules in this one. That’s what sort of defines how you play on set.
IG: Right. Yeah. So my role on the show is kind of the voice of reason. But yet I have to be funny and yet not be too preachy. The biggest hurdle I found was having to put out all of these religious beliefs and be funny and have a backbone and be a real person. So not just a talking Bible…this is right, that’s wrong. And it’s not written that way. [It is how] to find a place where the character can live, where he’s a real person…a very religious person, with a strong faith but also with a great sense of humor. And not dark, but he can be sarcastic, like a regular person. He’s in a bar. Most of the scenes I’m in takes place in a bar so…
That sounds like Drew Carey’s show a little.
IG: Yes, it is. (laughing)
Is this the first time you’ve done a multi-cam show since Drew?
IG: No. I was on “The Norm Show”, with Norm MacDonald.
Can you talk how the format has sort of translated? Because now everything’s like, everybody wants these little bits.
IG: Right. There’s no room for building anything. It seems like a lot of sitcoms are set-up, punch, set-up, punch, set-up, punch. On this show, there’s a lot of jokes but not a lot of exposition where you’re setting up the joke or setting up the backstory. It seems more of an old-school kind of sitcom where the characters grow. You get to learn the characters, then the humor comes from character humor. Based on how, if this person says it, it’s funny. If another character says it, it wouldn’t be funny because these characters are different. It seems like, on a lot of sitcoms, it’s like, “Here are a bunch of jokes, and you pick them.” Just like, everybody gets five, and it doesn’t matter which ones.
How much research did you want to have in the back of your mind for this? I mean, obviously, you’ve had experiences with different religions over the course of your life and career.
IG: Yeah. I didn’t trail a priest or anything like that. I felt that I knew enough about what people thought of priests and rabbis and religion, and the fear that maybe keeps some people away from them. Some people would not just go up to a religious leader and have a conversation for fear of being judged or something like that. I wanted to be a relateable priest. I wanted to be someone that people would say like, “Oh, I wish my priest was like that.” I wanted to be someone who you could sit down and talk to. And there was a difference there. There are some scenes that would take place in church and some scenes that take place in the bar for me. In the confessional scenes, it’s more priestly. But in the bar — so there’s a separation between those two times. Not that he loses his sense of humor in the confessional.
Is there a difference in truth in the two space or how he looks at truth?
IG: No, no, no. But when you’re in the house of God, there’s a certain amount of respect in how you hold and behave yourself within that, but within those boundaries, still be yourself and be a human, and you’re there for other people to help them. I also found that it was being able to help the lead character Chip, who’s going through this thing in the pilot. My character thinks this is the craziest thing he’s ever heard.
The God Squad aspect?
IG: No. Just the trying to live by the Bible, the way it’s written, literally. It’s insane and also dangerous. [So my character] tries to convince them to just use it as a guideline. Like one line in the show is that “BIBLE” stands for Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. So it’s like be a good person, golden rule kind of stuff, love God, love your neighbors, and anything like that, but you don’t have to go [like] stone adulterers and do all those other stuff. So being practical yet religious in the modern day.
There’s a very specific look to Father Gene. Could you talk about physicality informing the character?
IG: Well, I wanted the kind of — you see the old movies where the priest is a little old bald man, with glasses, spectacles, and kind of a thing? I was thinking of that. So the little old Irish priest. I kind of wanted to have that look. If I had hair, it would be the long-haired, hippie priest. I wanted to be the priest you might recognize. And I’m from New York.
So you probably saw a lot of this kind of guys growing up?
IG: Yeah. But I was terrified of priests as a child. My mom’s Jewish. My father was a Fundamentalist. His mom is a Fundamentalist. He wasn’t, but I always considered, whenever I saw someone in a religious wear, I was almost afraid of them. There was this I didn’t know how to handle, how to approach, how to talk to somebody like that, and what do I say and how respectful and all those other stuff. So I wanted to play a more approachable person.
And my last question to you is, with comedy, it’s easier on single camera. Can you talk about technique versus instinct and how that works? Not to give away your process, but about the balance between those two, especially in comedy.
IG: Right. Well, working on a multi-cam, you rehearse all week, not in front of an audience, and then you get the audience there. And they laugh in different places, and that kind of throws you off. And the wonderful thing about this is that you know it is TV, so you can do multiple takes, as opposed to the theater that says, “Oh, that, okay,” and then you just have to go with the flow.
But you guys always did multiple takes on Cougar Town. Do you find that made it better, or did it take away the spontaniety?
IG: But you don’t know how it’s going. You don’t know. Although you’re doing different takes and everything, you don’t know what the reactions are going to be. With multi-cam, you kind of get it right away like, “Oh, that worked there. That didn’t work.” And then you get into the rhythm of it more. Working on single cam, you’re kind of working in the vacuum. You really don’t know. And then it’s up to the editor to put all that stuff together, the different takes and cameras and camera angles and the sizes. So it’s more reactive right now with the actors to see what they’re doing.
By Tim Wassberg
With his powerful performance in Netflix’s “Mudbound”, his turn as Eazy E in “Straight Outta Compton” and now with his starring role in Showtime’s “The Chi”, Jason Mitchell is on a role. He took time after the panel for “The Chi” at the TCA Showtime Press Day to talk to Inside Reel about his ambition and process.
You been doing a diversity of projects from “Compton” to “Mudbound” to “The Chi”. Can you talk about keeping it fresh?
Jason Mitchell: Absolutely. I didn’t feel strange about not getting a certain sort of recognition for “Straight Outta Compton”. I didn’t feel like I deserved more than what I’ve got. But I did feel the amount of effort that I put into that character was sort of overlooked. People [were] like, “Oh, you’re from California, right?” No, actually, I’ve never been to California before I shot that movie. “Oh, you’re Easy’s kid, right?” No. They were so convinced that they just totally overlooked it. So in my mind, I was afraid that I was going to be pigeonholed. I was afraid I was going to be typecast in all these different things. So I was like, “You know what? Every role that I get, I’m going to try to change and morph as much as I can to just really show people.
Having just worked on a recent project with Kathryn Bigelow as well as Dee Rees [on “Mudbound”] and Lena [Waithe] here on “The Chi”, can you talk about them as directors and creators?
JM: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think women are the most sure creatures, you know what I mean. They have very little words, and they won’t go back and forth with you unless they feel that they can win it. And a lot of times, they won’t even go back and forth with you because they already won. Which brings me to say that they just have finesse. Like Dee Rees, I tell people all the time, [one of the] most sure black woman I’ve ever met in my life. We had 29 days, and we still finished early on some of those days. That was incredible to me. Kathryn Bigelow, I call her the big cat because she is super chill. And she’s very locked in. She knows exactly what she wants, and it’s the same thing with Lena. She told me, “Just support me. This is my friend’s TV show. I’m not the showrunner. I won’t be on set every day. But trust me, trust me, and let me know that I can trust you. And we can make a great show.” And I think that’s what’s happening.
With “Mudbound”, Dee had a sure hand but you had the role. I could not see you. And then here, same thing, it’s just because you disappear. Could you talk about that because that’s as much of a physical transformation as it is emotional.
JM: When people come to me with a really heavy material, I always respect the fact that that I was even thought of. For Dee to tell me, “You were the top of my wish list,” I was like…[and then Lena] “If we get Jason Mitchell, we can do the show.” When Showtime approached me, they were really, really like, “If Jason Mitchell’s down, we’re down.” Like, “What is what? What is my life? What are you saying?” You know what I mean? I feel an obligation to come in and I don’t think swing for the fences. Think swing for the parking lot. I’m trying to break a window in the parking lot, And I have to feel like that every time because these people are putting their star in my hands. It’s important for me to try to go out there and kill it every day.
But you can get so quiet, then you get so big. You can modulate the energy really well.
JM: I’m such a people watcher and I pride myself in being able to watch somebody so close, to be able to feel what they’re thinking before they think, you know what I mean? I grew up in service in New Orleans. And working at The Ritz-Carlton, they always just told us, “Anticipate the service. Anticipate the service.” And I feel now, that’s working for me in my career, because I can anticipate how somebody may feel in this situation.
By Tim Wassberg
Paul Giamatti is a man of many talents, able to traverse a variety of characters from his compassionate wine companion in “Sideways”, his sublime performance in “The Iceman Cometh” on Broadway and his more visceral performances in films like “Shoot ‘Em Up” and “The Hangover, Part II”. After sitting on a panel with his fellow actors as well as the showrunners discussing their 3rd season of Showtime’s “Billions” at the 2018 Showtime TCA Winter Press Day, Giamatti spoke to The Inside Reel about modulation of energy, likability and the quandary that is. U.S. Attorney Chuck Rhodes.
Can you talk about the modulation of energy within the performance because you have to go to such highs, such lows, and then the quiet moments versus the more intense ones?
PG: Yeah. [Rhodes is] kind of a manic-depressive personality. He’s kind of bipolar. I don’t know. I mean it’s good writing that helps you modulate that. I hope it modulates. I try to modulate it, but I don’t know. That’s just the character.
I mean it is a physical thing that it comes out emotionally?
PG: Sure. You’re just adjusting your energy. You’ve kind of got a map that tells you where you’re supposed to go and you just follow that plan.
Have your feelings about your character changed since you started playing him?
PG: There are actually [things] I like more about him as it’s gone along even as reprehensible as he’s gotten. I liked how clever he was last season, and he continues to be, although he’s very menaced by a lot of things going on. I actually have come to like him a lot more. I just find him more — he’s more fun to play. I mean, in my personal opinion, he’s a psychopath. They all are though on this show. Nobody particularly comes off very well. And this is actually interesting in this season because stuff that happens with the Clancy Brown character elicits some of the residual good stuff that’s still in there about [Rhodes] that reminds him of, “Oh, right. I do love the law and I do love administering justice properly when it needs to be administered.” That begins to come out of him a little bit too.
What was the biggest challenge prepping for the big collision scene at the end of Season Two?
PG: We didn’t have a whole lot of time. It is funny that that happens to me when — it’s very hard. Actors will always tell you laughing is very hard to do on camera. I actually am okay at it. The bigger problem I have is that once I start, I can’t stop (laughing). So that actually became the trickier thing in shooting that was getting me to stop laughing eventually so we could shoot anything. But we probably did two or three takes of it.
Can you talk about the idea of ambition within? Because you were saying it’s not about the money with this character, it’s almost more about the power. Can you talk about that?
PG: Yeah. I mean it is. It’s more about subtler things about power and stuff with him than even the money. He doesn’t care about the money, you know? And he is deeply ambitious. He’s hugely ambitious. This governor thing, but that becomes complicated in this season too, about what does he really want to do. And again, it comes to that [idea] where he starts thinking about, “Well, wait a minute. I actually have a pretty good job, and I actually can do good things here.”
Does it have to do with playing the heart of the matter? You have to play him as human, obviously.
PG: Yeah. He has a conscience. He’s got more of a conscience than you normally would think he has. These guys play at — it’s always ping-ponging back and forth. I will get the script and be like, “Wow. This is genuinely horrible. This guy’s horrible again,” and then like the next script I’ll be like, “Oh. Actually, he’s not so bad again.” So I never really know where the hell he is. He has more of a conscience, and his father really has none. There’s a huge conflict between the two of them.
And within the zeigeist there is that whole father/son aspect playing at the top echelon of US Government right now. Can you talk about the perception about what expectation means? It can be Greek. It can be mythic. Can you talk about that with those greater themes as it reflects in today’s society?
PG: Yeah. That’s true. Well, for sure. All of those things are a part of it. All those kinds of massive themes are [there] — but also dominance, and all that kind of stuff. It’s weirdly being acted out on the world stage.
But is there stuff that you sort of cling onto about him? Is it just that the wants of the father including into the wants of the son?
PG: For sure. The more interesting stuff is stuff about the father. It’s what’s being said and what’s not said, and also the way in which they’re wrestling and the father’s holding him down. All of that gets very shifty and interesting.
By Tim Wassberg