ADTV News - Page 83 of 241 - Awards Daily TV

Bob Odenkirk Reflects on ‘Better Call Saul’ Season Two

Bob Odenkirk talks about the allure of Better Call Saul and how he looks forward to playing the comedy in the drama.

There are criminal lawyers and then there are CRIMINAL lawyers. Bob Odenkirk plays the latter on AMC’s critically acclaimed drama Better Call Saul. Once solely known as the prequel series to the Emmy-winning Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul and Bob Odenkirk with it have quickly come into their own. Odenkirk managed to pull off a well deserved Critics’ Choice Television Award for Best Actor in a Drama Series and received an Emmy nomination in the same category.

On the surface, Better Call Saul documents Bob Odenkirk’s Jimmy McGill before he evolved into Saul Goodman, but, at its heart, it illustrates the journey of a man at odds with his own nature. The question on everyone’s lips, though, is when will Saul Goodman finally emerge? I sat down with Odenkirk to catch up on season two and tease the answer out of him.

AwardsDaily TV: It’s such a pleasure speaking to you. I mean, that cliffhanger! Oh my God!

Bob Odenkirk: Oh yeah? Good, I’m glad you feel that way. Did you like season two?

ADTV: I loved this season. I’m still wondering when we’re ever going to see Saul emerge.

BO: Saul doesn’t emerge quite so much as he’s in a little cocoon right now and I guess butterflies emerge. It’s more like cracking an egg. I think he’s just going to pop open in a beautiful, glorious flood of jibber-jabber and lime green socks.

ADTV: Every season it’s like, “Is this the season?” I hope we’re getting closer. I honestly thought maybe for season two, but now I’m thinking the egg might crack open in season three.

BO: Yeah, I think it will! When we get to it, I think it’ll happen a lot faster than people think. I don’t think becoming Saul is as slow an evolution as everyone else seems to think it is. I think that Jimmy McGill is really trying to live by some principles that he believes in, and they’re slowly getting beaten out of him. There’ll come a day where something will, I think, hurt him in a deep enough way that he just rejects all these fairly decent principles that he grew up believing in. I think it’ll be just a choice that he makes to be Saul Goodman and it’ll happen pretty quickly once it happens.

ADTV: What about when Jimmy admits that he swapped the one and six around. What do you think? Do you think Jimmy knows he’s done this terrible, terrible thing?

BO: Yeah, yeah. He loses sight of a bigger picture whenever he gets caught up in his inspirations, but that’s true of Saul Goodman too. It’s one of the reasons that when people compliment the character of Saul Goodman and say that he’s good at what he does, I’m always thinking, “Well, he’s good at getting excited about plans, but the follow-through doesn’t necessarily turn out the way he intends.”

ADTV: You’ve just finished an excellent, excellent second season, and the show has come into its own really. Have the comparisons between Better Call Saul and Breaking Bad died down? Is there less pressure on you guys now to distance yourselves?

BO: Absolutely. I think all the critics and fans feel strongly that the show has defined its own tone and perspective on the world. We have nothing but thankfulness for the excellence of Breaking Bad and the way it set the plate for us. But, there’s no longer any anxiety about maybe that we’re stepping into their territory too much or anything. I think this world is kind of formed at this point by the hard work of Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould and the writers. Now, I think you can almost feel them relaxing that this new Better Call Saul world is populous and filled with attitude and energy and plots and drives and hopes and dreams. They can relax and even think to include some of the characters from the Breaking Bad universe and not feel any concern about what it means to the overall picture. It’s literally just storytelling now.

ADTV: Do you have a brother in real life? Has somebody said you have to ask him about how he would react if you did what Chuck did? Would he react differently?

BO: I do have brothers. My brother Bill is a director for The Simpsons, my brother Steven is a banker in Tucson, and my brother Phil is a geologist. I would never treat them the way Chuck treats Jimmy. That is insane. He’s a fucking asshole [laughs].

ADTV: He is [laughs]. He’s terrible, but he’s still likable in some way.

BO: Well, he justifies his choices for sure. I guess you could sort of see his point of view. He’s worked very hard to become who he is, a paragon of virtue in the law and legal matters, but that doesn’t mean he’s justified in not giving his brother a chance to be someone and prove himself.

ADTV: On the subject of Chuck, he doesn’t show Jimmy that he has proof of the crime. What do you think he’s going to do? Is he going to sit on that or does he have a plan? What is Chuck up to?

BO: Oh my God. Well, everything I say is conjecture. I don’t know a goddamn thing about what the future holds except that one day Walter White walks into my office and then who knows if that’s the end. Anyway, I think that Chuck does not have a clear path because I think that Howard Hamlin, played so wonderfully by Patrick Fabian, is kind of annoyed by Chuck’s inability to move on to form a relationship with his brother. They’ve got work to do. My personal brainstorming on the matter is that Chuck wants to blow Jimmy up with this tape or this proof, and Howard is just like, “Can’t you just leave it alone? I order you to stop obsessing about that and get to work on things that will make us money.”

I think there’s a bump there. There’s not an easy path for Chuck to just pursue destroying his brother. Hamlin is just this guy that you initially saw as a bad guy and a snake and then they gave him depth and an empathetic quality to his nature so that he was kind of on Jimmy’s side in a lot of ways. What I think about Chuck with this tape is that his life isn’t easy with it, and he can’t just take that and beat Jimmy over the head with it. He’s got to either be careful or figure out what it means to him. I don’t know what he’s going to do, but I think we can understand that, in some way, becoming Saul Goodman is this character Jimmy McGill burning down the house. He’s burning down the principles and the things he’s grown up that he believes in and he’s just saying, “Forget all that. I reject it and I’m going to be Darth Vader, or evil, now.” Something really bad has to happen for Jimmy McGill, who we’ve come to know as a sweet guy who cares about his brother and actually wants people’s respect and wants them to think he’s a good hard worker with talents. To just forget all that and give up and become this guy who presents himself as an ethically slippery person and that’s how I’m going to make a living and that’s who I’m going to be to the public.

As far as comedy goes, thank God that Peter and Vince give me comic scenes and fairly pure comic scenes every once an episode or every other episode. I promise you – I am relieved when I get to do them and I relish them and I’m thankful for them because they are a breath of fresh air for me, and I need them.

ADTV: We’ll see what happens. Did you ever think that you’d still be playing Saul, now Jimmy, after all these years?

BO: No, I did not. Listen, it was a big risk to put this thing on, but it was a risk that seemed like a smart one with Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould writing. I feel like risk is at the core of what we do, all of us, in show business, so how can you balk at a risk? I don’t know anything I’ve done that was a sure thing except working hard, but other than that we’re all taking turns rolling the dice every time. I’m just incredibly thankful to play this character to people. I’m acutely aware of how sensitively written this story is and how unique it is in its seeing life through a macro lens on a very small and subtle level. I’m amazed and just blown away that regular people can watch it and get involved and care and be entertained by it. It’s wonderful to see. It’s a statement about what people are capable of if you just give them a chance.

ADTV: And they tune in week after week and want to know more. They’re invested in your character. That’s what’s fun about it, I think.

BO: I think people who haven’t been able to suspend some disbelief or relax and watch the show and let the show be what it is feeling like it’s slow. To the rest of the audience, it’s amazingly quick, and they’re wrapped up in watching it on the level it’s being written and played at. It’s a very macro level of drama.

ADTV: You’ve been doing drama, but your background is in comedy. Do you still do any improv and do you miss it much?

BO: I loved doing sketch comedy. I don’t improvise doing Better Call Saul. Pretty much everything I say has been written exactly the way I say it. And I mean exactly. That’s a goal I have is to do the lines to the letter. I don’t always do it, but I’m always trying to do it and I think that’s its own a unique challenge that I find very rewarding. I have enough improv in my life and I know there’s more to come so I’m good on that score. I think this challenge is a really cool one so I’m a pure actor in this endeavor in that I’m trying to do the lines exactly as written. As far as comedy goes, thank God that Peter and Vince give me comic scenes and fairly pure comic scenes every once an episode or every other episode. I promise you – I am relieved when I get to do them and I relish them and I’m thankful for them because they are a breath of fresh air for me, and I need them.

Bob Odenkirk will return to Better Call Saul on AMC in 2017.

Jalal’s Take: Supporting Actress in a Drama Series

Jalal Haddad takes a look at the Supporting Actress in a Drama Series Emmy race in the first of many posts leading up to the Emmy nominations announcement on July 14th. Over the next month, Jalal will be providing his own expert analysis in individual races and covering the top ten contenders in each category.

1. Uzo Aduba (Suzanne ‘Crazy Eyes’ Warren), Orange Is The New Black

Aduba has never lost a competitive award voted on by her peers for her role as fan favorite Suzanne ‘Crazy Eyes’ Warren. She’s won two Emmys (in the guest and supporting categories) and two SAG awards. History has proven that when Emmy voters like someone, they really really like someone. I wouldn’t be surprised if Uzo Aduba became the new Don Knotts at the Emmys. Aduba had a lot of interesting material to work with throughout season three including dramatic material processing the death of Vee and comedic moments where she writes science fiction erotica. Her only hindrance towards a third consecutive win is the backlash against Orange Is the New Black’s disappointing third season, although that didn’t dissuade SAG voters.

2. Emilia Clarke (Daenerys Targaryen), Game of Thrones

Clarke has been nominated for the third and fifth seasons of Game of Thrones and as pundits have pointed out her nominations have corresponded with major story arcs and scenes with her three dragons. Similar to how Headey’s Cersei dominated Game of Thrones coverage last year, Daenerys has commanded the coverage this year with her storylines and discussion on whether or not she will end up being the villain of the series. The more she stays at the forefront of the blogosphere by riding dragons or assassinating every remaining Khal the better chance she has at becoming the dark horse to win the award. She will also benefit from starring in Me Before You while Emmy voters are filling out their nominations ballot, which will only help them embrace her more.

3. Lena Headey (Cersei Lannister), Game of Thrones

Headey entered season six after her infamous scene (her walk of ‘atonement’) and she has been given a lot of ‘Emmy friendly’ material that makes Cersei a much more sympathetic character. She is recovering from the trauma of last season’s entrapment and shame walk, coping with the murder of her only daughter, and overall she has her sights on revenge. I could easily make the argument that Headey will finally win her first Emmy this year but she risks a huge chance of splitting the vote with Emilia Clarke who has also been getting some of her best material. Vote splitting is probably to blame for Headey losing last year and it will probably continue to affect both actresses unless one of them is surprisingly left out.

4. Christine Baranski (Diane Lockhart), The Good Wife

Baranski has been nominated for 14 Emmys over the past 21 years including six times for her supporting role as Diane Lockhart on The Good Wife. In fact, she has been nominated more times for The Good Wife than previous winners like Julianna Margulies and Archie Panjabi. Voters aren’t likely to suddenly abandon someone like Baranski in the final season of a show they have always admired. Love for Diane Lockhart is so high amongst fans that there are even rumors that there will be a show centered around her on CBS’s new streaming platform. Along with the other usual suspects in the category Baranski is probably a lock for a nomination.

5. Dame Maggie Smith (Lady Violet Crawley), Downton Abbey

When Downton Abbey premiered Dame Maggie Smith was suddenly one of the most buzzed about actresses on television for her snarky one-liners on the British period drama. To date she has won two Emmy awards, a Golden Globe, and an individual SAG award for her performance as Lady Crawley. In the past most bloggers and pundits (including myself) would have said it would be impossible for Emmy voters to ignore her but last year she was shockingly left out of the supporting race. Voters become sentimental with their votes when their favorite shows are ending and their sentimentality will push Smith to a fifth and final nomination for her quick-tongued one-liners.

6. Neve Campbell (Leann Harvey), House of Cards

The final slot in the supporting actress category is a bit of a wild card. I’m going out on a limb and predicting that voters will end up nominating Campbell for a small-ish role on a show they love. The bulk of her screentime was mostly in the first couple episodes but her role as Claire’s top aide was the best part of those episodes. I could be overestimating Campbell but more voters are probably watching and admiring House of Cards right now than any of the other shows mentioned below.

7. Joanne Froggatt (Anna Bates), Downton Abbey

Froggatt has been nominated multiple times by the television academy (and foreign press) for her performance as Anna Bates and her recognition makes a lot of since the writers usually give her some of the flashiest material of each season (her husband on death row, sexual assault, pregnancy issues). However over the years fans of the show (myself included) have grown tired of her and Mr. Bates. Compared to the other supporting players on Downton Abbey she is given little to do in the final season and I wouldn’t be surprised to see her left out. If she does end up being nominated she has the laziness of Emmy voters to thank.

8. Margo Martindale (Ruth Eastman), The Good Wife

Martindale has become an Emmy darling ever since she won her first statue five years ago for her supporting performance on Justified. Her three guest nominations (and one surprise win) are the only major Emmy attention The Americans has received. Throughout The Good Wife’s final season she played the campaign manager of Peter Florrick. The Good Wife isn’t as popular as it used to be but it does have a passionate fan base and so does Martindale in general. I haven’t been watching this season of The Good Wife and don’t know much about her role other than who she plays but I will never underestimate the power of Margo when it comes to the acting branch.

9. Rhea Seehorn (Kim Wexler), Better Call Saul

Seehorn would be an excellent addition to the supporting actress lineup. She gives probably the most interesting performance on a show that is essentially a character drama and she has gained a lot of fans along the way (including the ADTV team!). Her biggest obstacle might be that Better Call Saul might be dwindling in popularity amongst the general public. Ratings have slightly dipped and although the show still has a base of hardcore fans the buzz around the show seems to not be there this season. Seehorn probably isn’t a big enough name to break into a category filled with well-known actors on shows that voters probably like a lot more.

10. Constance Zimmer (Quinn King), UnReal

UnReal was one of the best new shows of the past year and Zimmer deservingly won the supporting actress award at the Critics’ Choice last January. Unfortunately for Zimmer, Emmy voters don’t pay attention to precursor awards like the Oscars do. In fact, most winners at the critics’ choice awards aren’t even nominated at the Emmys. Zimmer has been building up name recognition on very Emmy friendly shows over the past ten years with performances on House of Cards, The Newsroom, Entourage, Boston Legal, and Grey’s Anatomy. If enough voters start to recognize her and like the show she might be the surprise nominee of the year (like Nash was last year). Unfortunately, voters have network bias and will probably ignore a show like UnReal since it is programmed between campy TV movies and trashy reality shows. Even though the cards are stacked against her if the award was purely on merit Zimmer would be the frontrunner.

Honorable Mentions: Maura Tierney, Laura Carmichael, Regina King, Jayne Atkinson, Olivia Wilde

Readers, which six actresses do you think will be nominated come announcement morning? Are we completely overestimating or underestimating someone on this list? Sound off below in the comments!

Jalal’s Take: Supporting Actor in a Drama Series

Jalal Haddad takes a look at the Supporting Actor in a Drama Series Emmy race in the first of many posts leading up to the Emmy nominations announcement on July 14th. Over the next month, Jalal will be providing his own expert analysis in individual races and covering the top ten contenders in each category.

1. Peter Dinklage (Tyrion Lannister), Game of Thrones

Some actors are unstoppable at the Emmys. and I have a feeling Dinklage is becoming one of those performers. Last year he surprisingly won his second Emmy for what was arguably his weakest season in terms of Emmy-worthy material. His second win can probably be accredited to a near Game of Thrones sweep at last year’s ceremony. His win also came after a change in the final voting method (from tape based judging panels to a broader branch vote) that probably favored actors in popular shows with more recognizable names. As long as Tyrion remains one of the most beloved characters on the most popular show on television, his storyline won’t really affect the fact that he will be the favorite to win.

2. Jim Carter (Mr. Carson), Downton Abbey

Actors love Downton Abbey and since the show moved into the drama race Jim Carter has been the only member of the cast to be nominated for all four seasons. He’s a respected character actor who plays the lovable curmudgeon who just wants tradition and order. He’s an easy name to check off when looking through the overstuffed supporting actor packet. There aren’t a lot of high-profile new contenders in the supporting actor race this year and with his final storyline focusing on his new marriage, health problems, and retirement, I don’t see how voters pass on Carter in the final season.

3. Christian Slater (Mr. Robot), Mr. Robot

For months I denied Mr. Robot as a major Emmy contender and dismissed Slater’s Golden Globe win as the foreign press simply being wooed by the movie star on the ballot. The problem with my theory was that I was counting on other new shows to have a bigger impact but everything else seemed to fizzle out. Slater is probably safe for a nomination now that Mr. Robot is still getting a lot of buzz for the first season and was honored by a lot of the guilds. His only obstacle might be his reputation as a former heartthrob and trouble with the law. Actors don’t necessarily embrace tabloids the same way the foreign press does. As long as voters get to the eighth episode voters will be hooked and Slater will be almost guaranteed a nomination.

4. Michael Kelly (Doug Stamper), House of Cards

The other three slots in the supporting actor race could go a variety of ways because there is just none that exciting. In the past the nominees have included place holders from the beginning of the alphabet (Alan Cumming) or actors paired with the most popular shows. Michael Kelly has a good chance of riding the coattails of the Emmy voters’ insurmountable love for House of Cards. The only reason voters might not vote for Kelly is because Doug Stamper just might be the slimiest weasel (aside from Ramsay Bolton) on television. No his sins aren’t anymore heinous than those of the Underwoods but there is something pompous and humorless about him. His redemption storyline this season also came across as unbelievable. Whether or not he is nominated next month will be an interesting indicator on how sour a character can be before Emmy voters shun them.

5. Ray Romano (Zak Yankovich), Vinyl

With six acting nominations and 16 nominations overall, Romano is by far the most Emmy friendly actor with any sort of Emmy buzz in the supporting actor race. In most cases the mix of a beloved TV figure like Romano on a prestigious HBO/Scorsese production would mean a guaranteed nomination but Vinyl has suffered from limp ratings and unenthusiastic bloggers (including the ADTV team). Lack of enthusiasm aside, voters will probably embrace Vinyl to an extent and Romano will be an easy sell to voters especially when the campaign is led by HBO, arguably the most successful network at the Emmys.

6. Robert James-Collier (Thomas Barrow), Downton Abbey

Thomas Barrow was the closest thing to a villain on Downton Abbey, manipulating his way throughout five seasons. In the final season of the series the writers surprisingly gave Thomas the strongest arc of the entire finale by struggling with finding new employment, with his homosexuality, to find someone to support him, and he even battled suicide. He bonded with Lady Mary and in the final episode he took over as head butler. Emmy voters have given their favorite shows big farewells in the past and the recent SAG ensemble win is proof that voters are willing to embrace the show to the very end. In such a weak year at the Emmys Thomas Barrow’s redemption arc might be the biggest surprise.

7. Jonathan Banks (Mike Ehrmantraut), Better Call Saul

In his Emmy Spotlight article our very own Clarence Moye said it best when he described Better Call Saul as a show that he “immensely respects rather than outright loves.” I have a feeling that after the initial Breaking Bad high wore off a lot of voters might have stopped tuning in on a weekly basis even though they admired the show on an artistic level. Viewership has slightly declined and Banks doesn’t have a standout episode like last season’s Five-O. As small as it is, Better Call Saul does have a passionate fanbase online so maybe there will be passion within the acting branch of the academy for Jonathan Banks to receive his third nomination as Mike. He can also count on the fact that most members continually vote for the same actors year after year.

8. Alan Cumming (Eli Gold), The Good Wife

Alan Cumming is a well-liked actor, especially in New York, but some of his three Emmy nominations feel more like filler than a representation of the best of the category. He has always been vulnerable to be left out of a nomination if there had been more competition, especially last year. Now that The Good Wife just finished its final season he might be able to ride off of the good will of the show. Cumming also was given a good amount of material to work with in the final season as well; he was fired from Peter’s campaign and had the infamous scene with Alicia where he revealed that he deleted a voicemail from Will seasons ago.

9. Jon Voight (Mickey Donovan), Ray Donovan

Emmy voters have a strange relationship with Ray Donovan. The show has never been able to break into more than one Emmy race in a single year (Voight for season one and Schreiber for season two). The show’s ability to randomly pop up throughout the Emmys and other awards shows proves that there is at least a strong fan base (but probably small) for the show in general. In such a weak year Voight could easily receive a boost from name recognition and the fact that Showtime will be performing double duty by campaigning the show to Emmy voters and heavily advertising the new season that premieres later in the month.

10. Mandy Patinkin (Saul Berenson), Homeland

Mandy Patinkin is merely a placeholder. He could sneak in if the voters really love the fifth season of Homeland but my overall sense is that just about everyone is over the once Emmy dominating show. Patinkin has also been left out of the race twice already, including last year. The only hint of support out there is that SAG is still nominating Homeland in the ensemble race but the same voters have never recognized Patinkin individually.

Honorable Mentions: Kit Harington, Hugh Dancy

Readers, which six actors do you think will be nominated come announcement morning? Are we right to believe this might be the most boring category of the year? Sound off below in the comments!

Netflix Has a Big Package…

Netflix sure is PACKING!

Emmy season is upon us all, and studios are mailing out their screeners for their shows to be considered for awards. With networks like CBS, ABC, or FX, they usually send out physical screeners to voters so they can have the episodes handy to be considered. These major networks have to keep up with streaming services like Hulu, Amazon, and the godfather, Netflix, but it appears the latter is doing something a bit…odd.

Academy members have been taking to social media to share a special delivery from Netflix. Instead of putting everything online – because, you know, it’s a streaming service – the network sent out four massive boxes containing all of the content to be considered for awards this season. Each box is divided by genre (drama, limited series, etc.), and it includes every episode for every show that Netflix produces. This isn’t just one or two discs. You would get all of the episodes of Orange is the New Black and House of Cards and BoJack Horseman. This is the Oprah Winfrey giveaway of screeners, people!

According to Variety, the network spent around $1 million dollars to send everything out, and the collection weighs around 20 pounds. Apparently, size does matter. Does this mean that Netflix is going to have an even bigger presence at this year’s Emmy Awards? It’s a huge (not to mention expensive) gamble.

I want to throw it out there that I would be stoked to get this in the mail! If someone over at Netflix wants to toss one my way, I will give you my address. Please don’t literally toss it, because the entire package just might kill me if you hit me directly.

This takes Netflix and Chill to the extreme.

FYC: WGN America’s ‘Underground’

Ignore the placement on a non-HBO or AMC network, WGN America’s Underground is as worthy of Emmy attention as any other network dramatic series.

Near the end of the second episode of WGN’s drama Underground, the demure house slave Rosalee (Jurnee Smollett-Bell) says to the blacksmith Noah (Aldis Hodge) that she has realized why he chooses to get tattoos over the whip scars on his back, adding pain on top of pain.

“It’s about not lettin’ the white folks define your story… it’s about making it your own.”

This line is, in many ways, the thesis of Underground, which takes the form of a story about slavery but refuses to be constrained by the clichés of the setting. With energy and style, showrunners Misha Green and Joe Pokaski structure their story of a group of runaway slaves as something like a heist narrative with twists and secrets that turn what could have been a depressing story of suffering into an electrifying tale of adventure and survival. Like Noah’s tattoos, Underground doesn’t tone down or disguise the pain of slavery but reclaims and reinvents it into something new and powerful.

The series follows the exploits of the “Macon 7,” a group of slaves who plan an escape from a Southern cotton plantation owned by Tom Macon, a carpetbagger with political ambitions. Noah, played by Aldis Hodge (Straight Outta Compton, TNT’s Leverage), is the charismatic leader of the group, but Jurnee Smollett-Bell’s (Parenthood, True Blood) Rosalee is the true heart of the series. Having lived her entire life in the Big House as a house slave, she has seen a different side of slavery than the ones who work the fields (One of several brilliant touches by Green and Pokaski is how they’re able to illustrate and dramatize the class conflicts on the plantation… not just between black and white, but male and female, house slave vs field slave, etc.), She is still acutely aware of her constant peril. Being raised to be demure doesn’t mean you’re weak, and once she is drawn into Noah’s plan to escape she proves herself as steely and capable of fighting as any of the male members of their party. Both leads deserve Emmy consideration, but Jurnee Smollett-Bell is exceptional.

Among the supporting cast, the most prominent name belongs to Christopher Meloni (Law & Order: SVU), who plays an expert slave tracker. He doesn’t particularly enjoy his job but does it because he needs a way to support his young son. Another character stuck in the grey area between good and evil is Cato (Alano Miller, Jane the Virgin), a prominent house slave who forces himself into Noah’s party and whose cutthroat pragmatism in his own quest for freedom leads him to constantly waver between Antihero, Hero and even outright villain, infusing in his character an unpredictability that is irresistible. Another standout is Amirah Vann (And So it Goes, Tracers) who plays Rosalee’s mother Ernestine, who is willing to go to incredible lengths in order to protect her children from Tom Macon’s brutality. The only stumbling block in the show is (appropriately enough) the subplot following a white abolitionist couple who decide to use their home as a holding ground for the Underground Railroad. They soon discover that doing so is a lot more difficult than they expected. The problems of these rich white people are so much less compelling than those of the Macon 7 that they deflate the tension of the rest of the show in spite of the good performances from Marc Blucas and Jessica De Gouw.

Technically, the show is also first-rate. The sets and costumes are always authentic, and the soundtrack (supervised by John Legend, who is also one of the show’s executive producers) uses a combination of period music and contemporary songs to set and underscore the mood. Anthony Hemmingway (who also directed several episodes of The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story) directed the extended pilot and several other episodes. He gives the series a dynamic look, stylish but never sanitized, and treats the violence in a manner that is unflinching but not gratuitous. Subsequent episodes directed by Kate Woods and Tim Hunter also contain standout sequences of action and acting that, were the show airing on HBO or AMC, would have set Twitter ablaze.

Underground’s biggest obstacle on the way to the Emmys could well be the fact that it airs on WGN America, which has had a number of acclaimed dramas (Manhattan, Salem) that never quite seem to get the respect they deserve, possibly due to the “common knowledge” that only shows that air on basic or pay cable are worth watching. Make no mistake-Underground is as good as anything on TV right now, regardless of network. Due to its accessible subject matter and several big names among the cast, Underground might be WGN America’s best shot yet at the Emmy race yet.

It most certainly deserves it.

Possible Nominations

Drama Series
Aldis Hodge, Lead Actor
Jurnee Smollett-Bell, Lead Actress
Alano Miller, Supporting Actor
Christoper Meloni, Supporting Actor
Amirah Vann, Supporting Actress
Jussie Smollett, Guest Actor
Christopher Backus, Guest Actor
Anthony Hemmingway, Best Directing (“The Macon 7”)
Kate Woods, Best Directing (“Cradle”, “Graves”)
Tim Hunter, Best Directing (“Black and Blue”, “The White Whale”)

A Protest FYC: ‘And Then There Were None’

And Then There Were None is an Emmy-worthy modern classic of elegant suspense layered with subtle explorations of the nature of evil. It should be considered for the Primetime Emmys Awards, but it’s not…

We must be strong… In these times. We must be valiant and virtuous. We must be English women. – Emily Brent (Miranda Richardson)

It happens on occasion, although extremely rare, that a television event will strike you in unexpected ways. It’s always a good thing, of course, to be so pleasantly surprised. It’s not as if television were completely devoid of quality, but quite a bit of what I come across manages to meet my already high expectations. Maybe I’m an easy lay, but it’s far more likely to be crushingly disappointed (see: Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, or don’t and take my word for it). Consider me, then, to have been blown away by the quiet brilliance of Lifetime/BBC’s sterling production of Agatha Christie’s And Then There Were None. For some arcane reason, the series will only be considered for International Emmys, which is a terrible shame (and bizarre given War & Peace‘s placement in this year’s US-based Emmy race). It’s one of the best Limited Series of the Emmy year and deserves recognition and to compete as such.

Positioned as a Downton Abbey meets Friday the 13th, And Then There Were None is a delicate, fine-tuned handling of the well-trodden material. The central story – that of the systematic butchering of an assembled group of party goers at a remote island mansion – has a resonance and popularity that has permeated our culture since original publication (as, I swear, Ten Little N****** before it settled into its slightly more socially acceptable name of Ten Little Indians) back in 1939. That’s part of the reason this modern interpretation knocked me for a loop. This is hardly a new story, yet the highest compliment that can be paid to it is how fresh and unique the production felt.

Directed by with an assured hand by Craig Viveiros from a screenplay by Sarah Phelps (EastEnders), And Then There Were None gradually unfolds in two styles. It weaves a dreamlike narrative to gradually construct each character’s past while pushing forward with clinical precision to detail their ultimate fates. Despite having an ensemble cast at her disposal, Phelps brilliantly centers the revelations around the character of Vera Claythorne (Maeve Dermody), a former nanny seeking new employment. Vera appears the most relatable character in And Then There Were None. As each guest is presumably guilty, the audience pushes back against the belief that Vera committed such a terrible crime. The most brilliant aspect of this gradual unveiling of her character is ***slight spoiler*** that she may be the most deranged criminal of them all.

And Then There Were None weaves an intensely foreboding atmosphere. I’m not just talking about storms, flickering lights, and ghostly shadows. It uses a carefully constructed system of death imagery to set the tone. Window tassels drawn like nooses. Lobsters boiled alive and subsequently, brutally eviscerated. A foyer clock containing four horses, no doubt a nod to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Like most great directorial strokes, these touches aren’t immediately noticed on first viewing (save the lobster scene), but they accentuate the mystery and eventual terror that permeates the isolated mansion.

Same set of rules whether you’re posh or not. – Detective Sergeant William Blore (Burn Gorman)

Aside from the technical expertise, the cast appears under the Agatha Christie spell. Veteran actors mingle with younger faces to reflect the mix of socio-political statures in the film. While the cast is uniformly excellent, my attention was squarely focused on Miranda Richardson’s brilliant supporting role as the nauseatingly proper Christian Emily Brent. Richardson has two awards-worthy scenes that, in the hands of a lesser actress, would have been throw-away material. First, as maid Mrs. Rogers attends Brent, Richardson snidely (but always with the blood-curdling smile of a Proper English Woman) eviscerates her by effectively telling her it must be hot in the kitchen because she smells. Second, in Brent’s flashback, she is revealed to have an “unnatural affection” for a young girl she is mentoring. As the girl pricks her finger on a needlepoint, Richardson takes the finger and almost seductively licks the blood. It’s an insane, way out of left field moment that tells you volumes about the character and her inner struggle.

Ultimately, viewers may appreciate the creative merits of And Then There Were None but stop just shy of fully embracing because it masquerades as a classic slasher film. I encourage everyone – Emmy voters included – to look closer. Aside from its obvious class struggle theme, the film becomes a thought-provoking exploration of the nature of evil. Who really deserves to die? Who deserves to judge? What causes a person to break? These are questions that And Then There Were None raises without directly addressing the issues, leaving the audience to ponder the answers long after the final credits have rolled.

The Television Academy has a staggering amount of high-profile quality films to consider in this year’s Emmy race. Despite the troubling International Emmy placement, I would urge them, however, to look beyond the trappings of what people assume tony BBC productions to be and lose themselves in the morally complex And Then There Were None. Because a story has been told before doesn’t mean it’s always been told right. This creative team captured the original spirit of Agatha Christie’s novel and evolved it for a modern audience.

They struck creative gold in the process.

One little Soldier Boy left all alone;
He went out and hanged himself and then there were none.

The International Emmy eligibility window runs until September 30, 2016. The ceremony will be held in New York on November 21, 2016.

‘Roots,’ Remakes, and Emmy Press

Episode 79: Emmy time is almost here so the interviews and prestige programs (such as A&E’s Roots remake) are abundant.

This week at the Water Cooler, we take a step back and talk about all of the fantastically insightful Emmy interviews we’ve conducted over the past few weeks. Some of us even readily admit to being starstruck by our interview subjects. After that, our main topic this week is the recent A&E Roots remake. Does it work? Does it successfully update the classic 1977 original? How will Emmy react? Plus, using Roots as a guide, we take a look at what classic miniseries or TV movies we’d like to see remade.

As always, we close with our TV Flash Forward.

Next week, we’ll be offering up our personal nominations for the 2016 Emmy Awards in all major categories. On June 27, we’ll be covering this year’s crop of Amazon television pilots, which drop on June 17. Make sure you clear your calendar to join in the discussion as we slice and dice our way through them.

Until then, ENJOY!

05:17 – Maya & Marty
13:50 – Emmy Press / Interviews
21:42 – Roots
46:00 – Flash Forward

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Carrie Coon Talks Leftovers, Plays, and Gone Girls

Carrie Coon speaks with AwardsDaily TV about film, theater, television, and The Leftovers

Carrie Coon burst onto television screens in HBO’s critically acclaimed and enigmatic drama The Leftovers. After a divisive first season, the drama took on a new dynamic, expanding its appeal and story threads into its second term. Critics responded in kind, and, as a result, Coon picked up an unexpected, but well deserved, Critics’ Choice Television Award for Best Actress in a Drama Series for The Leftovers.

Having heavily advocated her terrific big screen turn in David Fincher’s excellent Gone Girl then ploughing through two seasons of The Leftovers, Robin Write finally gets the phone call from the super-talented, delightful, and theater-bred Carrie Coon.

AwardsDaily TV: So, Carrie Coon, it’s great to meet you.

Carrie Coon: Thank you.

ADTV: When I first heard about The Leftovers I actually thought it was referencing the Oscars’ treatment of the movie Gone Girl.

CC: Oh! [Laughs] That’s funny!

ADTV: We were quite disappointed, really, with the Gone Girl awards reception, because we all love it.

CC: Aw, thank you for that.

ADTV: Did you read Gillian Flynn’s book?

CC: I did, in fact. I read it well before. My husband and I are both big readers so we had picked it up, because she’s a Chicago-based writer and we always read the book reviews in the New York Times. So we had a copy of it, and when we were doing (Who’s Afraid of) Virginia Woolf in New York, in Broadway, is when we read it. We kinda passed it back and forth and just had a great, entertaining time. I really liked the character of Margo even when I read the book, and incidentally, when I was cast for the film, Gillian was one of the only people who knew who I was because she had seen Virginia Woolf in Chicago.

ADTV: Oh, right! That’s good!

CC: Yeah, so she knew my work and nobody else did. [Laughs]

ADTV: [Laughs] Small world! Well, I loved “Go,” as she’s called in the book. I think you nailed it, to be fair, brilliant casting.

CC: Aw, thank you!

ADTV: Was Margo easy to become? Was it something you read and thought “I could do that”?

CC: Yes, I mean, there was something about her rhythm that was very familiar to me. I come from a very dry, sarcastic family and the script was very intact with the language of it. She was so quite verbal in the script which is like the characters I tend to play. I tend to play women who are intelligent, pretty dry, you know. Also the fact that I have three brothers and there’s that sibling dynamic, I mean, I’m the middle of five kids so the whole dynamic of siblings is very familiar to me and the rhythm of it I recognized immediately. You know, Gillian is a mid-westerner and I think I just totally understood the ease of where we were when we read the book, and I was relieved when that was still intact when I read the script. And she’s so important because you don’t see a woman trusting Nick. I think it was very intelligent of both Gillian and David (Fincher) to keep that role intact the way it was.

ADTV: Fantastic. So, can you describe David Fincher in three words?

CC: Oh, my goodness. Exacting. Intelligent. And, oh gosh, a perfectionist! He and I get along great because we are both perfectionists and I did not feel intimidated by the fact that he likes to do long takes because I’d never made a film before. And I needed all the takes I could get. [Laughs] And you know what? He’s a great teacher. He taught me a lot about being on camera. He recognized very early that I didn’t have a lot of experience, he knew what he was getting into and he went out of his way to show me what he was doing because he knew if he showed me, then I could do it.

ADTV: What do you find distinctively different about TV and film, then?

CC: Well. [Laughs] I went from Gone Girl immediately to The Leftovers with no break. I was working on the first episode and we did three takes and the director said “Oh, we got it! Moving on!” I thought “Oh, no! I was just warming up!” [Laughs] In TV you only get that time and either you get it or you don’t and they’re moving on regardless. You hope the editor can save you – so you have to learn to work more quickly on TV.

ADTV: I obviously know a little bit about you, you got the Tony Award nomination for Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf – is it fair to say theatre is your first love?

CC: Yes, that was all I was doing. Since I graduated from graduate school in 2006 I worked almost exclusively in the theatre back to back, really making my living in the theatre in Wisconsin and Chicago. So I didn’t really know much about TV and film besides from the commercial work I had done, and I had also done a couple of guest star stuff by the time The Leftovers rolled around. But, you know, I married Tracy Letts, an extraordinary play-writer, and an extraordinary actor, and it’s interesting because he’s been a theatre actor most of his life. He tried to do L.A. in his 20s, and it’s only now at 50 he’s experiencing this incredible film career, so he’s kind of in the same place, experiencing TV and film work for the first time and figuring it out. And then, you know, I’m doing his play right now so I think theatre will always be a part of my life and it’s certainly more forgiving to women. [Laughs]

ADTV: Yeah. So what would you say it is about acting that gets you out of bed in the morning?

CC: Oh, my! Well, you know, what I love about it is that it is a profession that invites one to be very present and I don’t feel that many professions require that of a person – and ours most certainly does. And that reminder in your work that is that to be present is to do the work well is a great rule book to your life. To be present in your life. And to me that’s very fulfilling, and I know what it feels like, so I can make those distinctions. I don’t know that everybody is in a position where they even know what that means. I feel grateful to know what that means.

ADTV: Well, I will say that the wife and I were glued to The Leftovers, because there’s nothing quite like it on TV at the moment.

CC: I agree!

ADTV: There’s a lot of zombie things, people coming back from the dead, Les Revenants, but this isn’t just about that first reaction, what happens in the first five minutes. It goes three years on.

CC: Exactly. It’s about what happens when the foundation is shaken.

ADTV: Like a bomb has gone off and this is the fallout.

CC: Yes.

ADTV: So what vibes or emotions did you get from the script, before you started filming it? As an audience member, as you’re watching it, it’s all quite chilling and you wonder how you would react, but did you get that when reading it?

CC: I had read the book, again, my husband and I are big readers so I already knew Tom Perrotta’s novel that it was based on. And I didn’t know how closely they would adhere to his story, and it turns out we deviated pretty extravagantly from his original story. But the tenure of the book I understood, and I think, at least in the first season, we were very faithful to at least that atmosphere that Tom creates in his book. So I kinda felt like I knew exactly what it was, and much like Margo, when I initially read the book before I knew it would be adapted into a television series I quite related to Nora, and connected to Nora, so I felt like I had some understanding of her – who she was, what she was up to, and what she wanted before that script even came to me. It was almost like she was already a part of me before I got to go into that room and, it’s very rare, but every now and then you encounter a role that you think “Oh, no one else should, no one else can play this! I can’t imagine anybody else is going to play this, I have to play this!” It felt that with Honey in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf too.

ADTV: Congratulations on the Critics’ Choice award.

CC: Oh thank you. It was such a wonderful surprise.

ADTV: Well it was about time you got recognized to be fair.

CC: Oh thank you. It is so hard when there is so much content, and frankly, the viewership was not that high, if we did not get the critical response for season two I am not sure we would have been allowed to continue. So I am grateful for the attention, so our show could move forward, and end it the way we wanted to end it.

ADTV: Nora Durst is not really a character you forget. I remember the first season, I think that is still on people’s minds, like Emmy voters, and whoever else is going to be voting. The big conference episode which was all yours. And that big scene in the final episode, which might be the most famous moment of the two seasons. So how did you have to develop Nora going into the second season, she was a little bit different, with what was happening, how did you dive into it the second time around?

CC: Well what’s wonderful about Damon (Lindelof) and our creators is that they do not ask us to do the same thing over and over again. An actor can get pigeon-holed and asked to perform the same tropes, you know the hurt wife, the nagging girlfriend, the sad divorce, you would have to play the same things over and over again. It was interesting to me they were pursuing other threads in Nora’s personality, and I credit Damon for his curiosity about actors. He sees things in us, and he pursues them. Sometimes forces us to confront our own fears, on camera, which is not really fair [Both Laugh]. There were moments were I was like “I don’t know if I agree with that,” but you have to trust where it is going as the story-telling is intrepid, sometime even brazen. And the wonderful thing about doing TV versus theatre is that you don’t know the ending. We read the scripts just days before shooting, Damon keeps his cards very close. There’s something very liberating about throwing yourself in the maze even though you don’t know where it is going. And I enjoy working with him that way, trusting him, and I will miss that adventure when this is over.

ADTV: Nora is, well, I don’t know if she is the strongest character, or if she is the most grounded, but because she has lost the most perhaps she is, a really strange paradox I think.

CC: Yeah it is, because there is something very grounded about her, even though she is rather untethered, it’s a very interesting thing to play. There is always a fundamental tension in her, which I think is left over from the book, where towards the end of season one Nora is considering leaving her life, forever – just walking away and becoming someone else. And in some ways we are all free to do that at any time, we just never do. I just love that incline in her that she can walk away at any moment, that people can disappear, so why can’t I? That is always alive in her, and I love that about her. Being weighed down by grief is not interesting, but the struggle to come out of it is. Everybody grieves, everybody goes through it. And our show navigates through it in a way that is very true to me.

ADTV: Nora seems to be on the brink of all kinds of states and emotions, was that intentional – perhaps a bit of you, a bit of Nora, or a blend?

CC: Yeah, I think that’s an interesting question. There is something elusive about the process, where sometimes you are not sure how much of it is you. The thing about acting of course if that you have to consider yourself as capable of anything as a human being, and that’s a difficult thing to acknowledge, as what you are acknowledging is all the dark things humans are capable of, not just the joyful, light things. So I suppose it is a mix of the two.

ADTV: How open minded are you to that kind of unnatural, supernatural thing happening?

CC: I suppose if something supernatural happens all we have to deal with it are the tools we have, whether supernatural or not. That’s why I think the show feels truthful in terms of the scope of human experience – especially in season two when we recovered a bit of our sense of humor [Both laugh]. To me that is even more truthful because of how people deal with the circumstances. It’s never purely one thing, and I am deeply mistrustful of the response of only one thing, that does not feel very real.

ADTV: You touched on your brothers earlier, with Ben Affleck and Christopher Eccleston you have two troublesome brothers, in very different ways. Anything from your own siblings that you consciously or unconsciously brought to the roles?

CC: I suppose like I said earlier, I am a sister to three very different brothers, and also the middle child, so I am the harmonizer a bit – the traditional middle child, the peacemaker. So I love that I have been thrust into dealing with these hapless and difficult boys, in a relationship that is not romantic – which of course is a very different dynamic. Chris Eccleston’s character was not my brother in the book, that was something they added, so that was an interesting shift for me to make. Sometimes having to remind myself of our biographies. He is very fun to work with, I find him very compelling as an actor. He and I just like to throw things around at each other, the material allows a lot of room for interpretation. I was surprised to be considered in the category in lead, I felt a lot of balance in the season, and I did not have a stand-alone episode this year. I am flattered to be considered, I am just so blown away by so much of the work of my cast mates on the show, so I feel like a small cog in a very big machine.

ADTV: Yeah, especially that second season there was quite a lot to choose from – like Regina King.

CC: Oh gosh, she is so extraordinary. We just had the best time working together.

ADTV: That scene you did, were you start the questionnaire, and then she flips it back on you. Great stuff. And one of the best scenes I think.

CC: We have not worked together before. I rarely get to work with the women on the show. Think about it, I am often working with Justin (Theroux) or Chris, or the babies (both laugh). So it is very satisfying when I get the opportunity to act with the women we have cast, so rare for me. And that day with Regina was just sublime. I’ve always admired he work, I got to do something with her, and I was really looking forward to it, and apparently she was too – I am so flattered that she cared to be in the room. So we look forward to more things. We could try to encourage a spin off, a cop show maybe.

ADTV: Yeah, that would be good, like Robert De Niro and Al Pacino in Heat. You could do a female version of that.

CC: There you go, I’ll take that. See. Come on, pick this up!

ADTV: Is acting everything? Was there a plan B?

CC: When I was an undergraduate, my degree was in English and Spanish, I was doing my thesis in language acquisition, I thought I was going to be a linguist. I have always been interested in language specifically, and am grateful I have a job that is still in language. And also the voice work, the actual physiological production of a human voice I find really fascinating. And I think I would have ended up being some sort of voice coach or voice teacher maybe. I make a terrible waitress. Worst waitress you have ever seen.

ADTV: Well we will call that plan C, or plan D [Both laugh]. Just a couple of questions, female directors is quite a big thing at the minute, anything you can tell us about the Katherine Dieckmann project?

CC: Yeah, I have finished a film with Holly Hunter, directed by Katherine Dieckmann, called Strange Weather, and that’s in its final throws of post-production – so hoping to see some festival play for that. And of course working with Holly Hunter was just a dream come true. And then I have a film coming out with Lee Pace, that was a lot of fun to do, called Keeping Hours. I also have a tiny part in a movie called The Legacy of a Whitetail Deer Hunter with Josh Brolin, directed by Jody Hill. And The Leftovers season three. I am just waiting to see what the next thing is that is challenging to me, I like to be challenged. If that’s the theater, great, or a television show, a film, fantastic. But like you say, I have an interest in supporting women writers and directors. I try and be conscious of what I am putting out to the world.

ADTV: Last question, every October 14th now, do you wonder, just for a minute?

CC: Oh that such an interesting question. Trying to think where I was last October 14^th. Frankly, my year was so crazy I rarely even knew the dates. I bet once The Leftovers is over it will bring a pang of nostalgia.

ADTV: Thank you for talking to me, a real pleasure.

CC: Thank you Robin for watching the show and being interested enough. Really appreciate it.

HBO has renewed The Leftovers for a third and final season of eight episodes which began principal shooting in May 2016.

Freddie Highmore: Your Above-Average, Extraordinary (But Super Nice) Psycho

Bates Motel star Freddie Highmore talks about his passion for writing and the beautiful, tortured psyche of Norman Bates

There are two things of which I’m completely certain. First, A&E’s Bates Motel finished its fourth season with its most daring, most brilliant, and most astonishingly acted sequence of episodes to date. Second, its star – the young and obscenely talented Freddie Highmore – is the nicest person with whom I have ever spoken.

Frequent readers of AwardsDaily TV are no doubt aware of my enthusiasm for Bates Motel and its creative team / family. This critically acclaimed drama, much like other acclaimed dramas such as The Americans, has been unjustly ignored by the Television Academy since receiving an early nomination for Vera Farmiga way back in season one. But my enthusiasm for the series pales in comparison to that of its creators and stars, particularly Norman Bates himself – Freddie Highmore.

Unencumbered by the need to maintain hip detachment from the material, Freddie Highmore is infectiously enthusiastic about Bates Motel and his place in that world. Refusing to stand by as an actor for hire, Highmore has joined the talented ranks of the writing team in the series’ fourth season with “Unfaithful,” the episode that kicks off an emotionally turbulent end to the season.

That writing talent, coupled with his sensitive and committed portrayal of Norman Bates, cements Freddie Highmore as more than just a well adjusted child star. It gives him the rarified status as a bonafied creative force both in front of and behind the camera. Should the Television Academy fail to recognize this great talent this season, then it is to their immense discredit. Highmore deserves serious consideration for Best Actor as he, alongside his ingenious writer’s room, brought Norman Bates to the infamous act made classic by Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho.

Oh yeah, and did I mention that Freddie Highmore is literally the nicest person I’ve ever “met?”

AwardsDaily TV: First off, Freddie Highmore, I want to congratulate you on the season and your outstanding performance. I can’t imagine the emotional commitment it took to get through this season.

Freddie Highmore: Oh well thank you. I’m glad you’ve enjoyed it, but [laughs] I’ve stayed sane! People seem to assume that I must have gone completely crazy myself, but no. All is well. I survived too.

ADTV: Given that you obviously knew what was coming at the end of season four and how traumatic it would be for your character, how did you mentally prepare for the season?

FH: Well, there was no particularly special preparation as such. In a way, it never quite seemed real that Norma was dead until it actually went on air and people started asking questions about it. There’s a sense that “Oh, it’s not actually happened yet.” And like Norman, perhaps deludedly, you want to maintain hope in the show… you want to side with Norman and you maintain this deluded belief that he does that she’s going to come back. And you want them to be there together… Perhaps that sense of optimism Norman maintained had, to some extent, infected everyone with this misguided sense of belief that what was going to happen actually wasn’t going to be the case.

ADTV: Yeah, I actually lobbied quite a bit for Kerry [Ehrin, writer/producer] to flip the script so that Norma didn’t have to die. I knew somebody had to die. I didn’t care who it was. I just didn’t want it to be Norma.

FH: And of course what an amazing performance [Vera Farmiga’s] given as Norma! Obviously her role on the show will continue to be ever-present with the evolution into something else. I just think that’s what this season has been looking back on… Time to celebrate the amazing life of Norma Bates. I’ve just been so lucky to work with her throughout it all.

ADTV: So, given the ending was predefined by Psycho coupled with the highly collaborative environment of Bates Motel, did you have any influence with the writing team about how to steer Norman down this path?

FH: Oh yes, I was fortunate this year that Kerry and Carlton let me be a part of the writing team, and so I was in the writing room sort of before we started shooting. I ended up writing eighth episode of the season. So, in that way, I did have a direct involvement with the way things progressed. This year, from Norman’s point of view, there was a focus on trying to maintain his likability while at the same time we see him mature into a more Macheiavellian personality – someone who understands emotion on such a deep level but he’s capable of manipulating people in order to get his own way.And I think this season too has just shown heartbreakingly how strong the bond between Norma and Norman is and the depth of his love for her. The ultimate act that he does, in his deluded mind, is an act of love, and he’s doing what he thinks is best for them to be able to live happily ever after together. It’s not out of jealousy for Romero [Nestor Carbonell] or out of wanting to sort of plant a seed down and say, “Look, I’m the man of the house. I’ve returned.” It definitely comes from this innate understanding really that Norma and Norman have to be together. The tragedy of the whole piece is that they need each other more than anyone else, and he feels that trying to take them both out together is their best chance of moving on together into the dreamy world of Hawaii. [Laughs]

ADTV: Yes, the elusive vision of Hawaii… Earlier, you mention writing the episode “Unfaithful.” How was that process for you and is that something you’d want to do more of?

FH: Yes! I loved it. It was a brilliant experience. I would like to do more writing as a sort of gateway into writing other things and of being involved in projects from the very beginning through to the very end – that sort of being a part of the broader process rather than just being a smaller part of it. And I think that’s where the desire came from. Working on Bates, you sort of go away between seasons, and I was left with this feeling that I wanted to be a part of it in between seasons as opposed to giving so much for five months and then buggering off back to Britain. It was that desire to not feel as pithy in the process of Bates Motel and just looking forward for the opportunity to develop my own things would be brilliant.

ADTV: One of the things that I was most thankful about at the end of the season was that Norman didn’t violently kill Norma. Tell me how it was to film the scene where you’re singing her to sleep just before the gas comes on and then in the next episode you’re glueing her eyes open because she won’t come back to you. That’s such a massive dichotomy…

FH: Yes, we shot chronologically episode by episode, so that last episode was a mad seven or eight days. I guess that goodbye scene in a way it was one of the happier scenes that ultimately Norman and Norma have had together, and I think Norman himself loses himself in that moment and feels content and feels complete. He’s made his decision, and that has come on before when he’s seen how heartbroken she is when he has that moment of self-awareness in the mirror with the robe. I think now it’s the aftermath of that, and they’re truly at one together and at peace. What I love about Kerry and Carlton’s vision… Is this whole idea that Norman thinks she’s going to come back to him and that it’s part of this master plan, particularly when he’s railing at her at the funeral… It’s that dark humor of Bates Motel that’s so engaging and so important to the tone so that it doesn’t descend into horror after horror.

And, as you say, that dark humor behind the eyes being glued open, and at the same time there’s this innocence and genuineness that Norman believes that will somehow get her back and bring her back to him. Ultimately, he’s right! [Laughs] Ultimately, she does return. I think with – particularly the last few episodes – you have to play it straight. Norman is at his most genuine in the last two episodes of the season when he’s sort of being completely honest and the audience is on his side and knows what he’s genuinely thinking. He’s not trying to trick the audience – he’s letting them inside his genuine thoughts and processes. That’s what’s so key moving forward – to understanding what Norman is really thinking when he’s deceiving people and when he’s not as opposed to having him deceive the audience, if that makes sense.

ADTV: Yes, it does completely. As I’ve said before, I’m a huge fan of your performance as Norman. How do you make that unique against the public persona of what [Psycho star] Anthony Perkins was able to do with the same character?

FH: I guess I’ve never thought to mimic Anthony Perkins’s iconic performance. It’s always served as a source of inspiration as of course the film has for everyone, but we’ve never felt 100 percent tied to it. It was more the mythology of Psycho we were working with as opposed to a true prequel. So, that helped everyone feel free to create their own version of events. Of course, I didn’t want to completely relinquish what Anthony Perkins did, but, at the same time, I wanted to make it something different while putting it into the contemporary setting that Bates Motel has.

ADTV: Where do you take your career now that you’ve played one of our culture’s most notorious serial killers?

FH: [Laughs] Well, we’ve got one more season which will be an incredibly exciting season. It’s almost a whole new show again where we’re setting up these rules and new relationship between Norman and Norma. That will be incredibly exciting. I guess other than Bates it would be nice to do a comedy. [Laughs] Do something different, but I’ve never felt tied to a particular genre or character. I’ve always wanted to try new things and not get stuck in a particular rut if I’m lucky.

ADTV: I recently spoke with Kerry [Ehrin], and I have to say the excitement in your voice about season five mimics hers so I cannot wait to see what you guys have in store for us.

FH: [Laughs] It’ll be good fun!

Freddie Highmore will return to Bates Motel when it airs the final season in 2017.

Norman Lear and Chuck Lorre In Conversation At WGA

Hollywood. Thursday night, Norman Lear and Chuck Lorre sat down at the Writers Guild in conversation. Sitting down in front of WGA members, the kings of comedy who wrote and produced hits such as All In The Family (Lear), The Jeffersons (Lear) , Good Times (Lear) , Maude (Lear), Grace Under Fire (Lorre), Two and a Half Men (Lorre), and The Big Bang Theory (Lorre) talked about working in comedy.

When asked what Chuck Lorre show he watched, Lear admitted the only show he’d really seen a lot of was The Big Bang Theory. Talking about how working in comedy has changed over the years, Lear said, “There were only three networks,” when he was working on TV almost 45 years ago.

Lorre was asked what about Lear made him want to enter into the sitcom world said, “He (Lear) clearly made it obvious to everyone that comedy wasn’t predicated on contrived situations. Even the word sitcom fell apart when he began to work, because prior to that time, it was very appropriate, because the guy was married to witch. That’s a situation. An astronaut comes home with a genie. It’s a situation. It could be called a sitcom, but beginning with All in the Family, that was just life.” He added, “Good comedy was just life, people in relationships, in families dealing with one another. There was no more sit in the com. It was just comedy of life. That’s something that I got a taste of when I was on Roseanne 26 years ago. She was very adamant about pursuing that and she raised the bar. She really did.”

Lorre who also wrote and produced Mom (CBS) was asked if whether we’re in the Golden age of TV answered, “There’s a pendulum swing that’s really clearly . It became very conservative again in the 80s. Then it went through a great decade of sarcasm in the 90s. Frankly, I’m looking back at my own career now. The things I learn to do when I was on Roseanne, I applied them to a show I did called Grace Under Fire. I only did it for one year, but I applied the same rules to that and then I moved away from it. I can’t honestly tell you why I moved away from it.” He went on to say, “The big picture is to why it swings. Human nature would be the only answer I could have. It seems the country always finds the middle, but the swings can be terrifying.”

The two spent 95 minutes in conversation, even discussing everything from Lear comparing Donald Trump to Archie Bunker, to praising South Park. The evening ended with Lear revealing that he was working with Netflix on a modern One Day At a Time reboot. He said, “We’re doing a Latino version, a Cuban American version of One Day at a Time. With Rita Moreno and there are a few people who know Rita Moreno well and Justina Machado. I’m having a great time. They are wonderful.”

Check out photos from the event below.