How involved in the writing are you?
It’s [creators and co-showrunners] Jack Amiel and Michael Begler, [supervising producer, co-executive producer, writer] Steven Katz, me and [Soderbergh’s longtime first AD] Greg Jacobs in a room with two giant dry-erase boards with one through ten written across the top. We had a macro idea of what the first two seasons were and we even sent it to Clive [Owen] from the beginning. In each case, the writers would show up with a bucket of ideas, shit that was going on medically during this period, the discoveries, the breakthroughs. Things they had read in their research and we would go, “That idea could go here. That idea could go there.”
We knew at the beginning that we were going to kill [the health inspector] Jacob Speight (David Fierro) for example. We knew that season two was going to involve Cornelia Robertson (Juliet Rylance) trying to figure out why that happened. We had things sketched out, then they go off and they start and they turn the scripts around very, very quickly.
Amiel and Begler wrote in sitcoms before they did movies, so the good news was like they’re used to writing really fast. Steven Katz we brought in because I knew he knew this era and world. We brought him in because we didn’t have time to educate somebody about New York during that period and he jumped up to speed immediately. The [Amiel and Begler] scripts come back and what we would do is have another two days of sitting in a room going through every script scene by scene.
In the season two finale, as Bertie tries to save Thackery, he’s running to get the adrenaline, and you’re whipping right along with him. And according to the script Cinemax sent, it wasn’t written like that.
That’s another idea I had about a third of the way through shooting it. I went over the guys. I go, “This is how we’re going to end it.” They went, “That’s great!“ It’s about being in an environment in which you have the freedom to think like that. The ability to come up with an idea, implement it immediately right there and most importantly not be second guessed on you decision afterward.
By whom?
By whoever is paying for it. Look, I’m sure there are directors working in episodic TV are going, “Yeah, that would be really nice, but I don’t have that freedom” because most episodic directors are not directing every episode of their shows although I think you’re going to see more of that. They are more often than not there is no vessel to implement somebody else’s decision. That’s the typical structure of a TV show. What I’m encouraging people to do hopefully by example is, if you’re not going to go a single director route, is have a small enough route to have them be part of the brain trust from the beginning.
Like what you’re doing with the Starz series “The Girlfriend Experience,” which has two directors on it and that’s it.
I think when people see that show, they’re going to see the benefits of this way I’m working because there’s nothing out there that’s like the show, like what Lodge [Kerrigan] and Amy [Seimetz] did is crazy. And it’s like proof of concept for what can happen going forward with this or other shows.
The metrics of the success for places like Cinemax and Starz is starting a conversation around show that gets subscribers, right?
Yes, but also, in talking to [Starz CEO] Chris Albrecht, he’s like, “We’re going to watch this closely just from a process standpoint because we liked the idea of what you’re proposing and if it works, this is could be a template for that we’re going to want to do.” They looked at the result and went, “Okay. That’s cool.” Again, you’re working within a specific economic parameter but within that go for it, like go push it as far as you can. They were really, really supportive and they really liked the results so now we’re planning the next phase. There’s a slightly different grammar in long form television. There’s an opportunity there to bring in a grammar that comes from a way of storytelling that is less literal in the sense that… [trails off]
That’s been on your mind for years. The “tyranny of narrative.”
It’s unusual for instance, it’s not unheard of. There are shows that do it but it’s unusual to have extended periods of time in a television show where people don’t talk. That’s not a typical and it’s that way of thinking, “Are there ways to put ideas and story points across that don’t involve people telling you things in dialogue?” And that comes from a more cinematic way of presenting things and I think I’m seeing more people doing it. I think it’s great for the viewer. There were two seminal events in television, two [shows] changed things and anybody that is doing anything good is standing on their shoulders — “Twin Peaks” and “The Sopranos.”
When you take those two shows and what those two shows were doing and how they were doing it, those were really the building blocks. What I think is evolving is just a new way of telling stories on TV.
Who knows what’s going to motivate the next generation? Viewing habits are changing so much that it’s hard to tell in what size morsels people are going to want content.
I know from looking at the data when I was VP of the Director’s Guild, that the only real area of growth in the entertainment business was one hour original content. Everything else was shrinking except for sports which is always going the right direction. Basically, every other aspect of the entertainment business is shrinking except for one hour original content.
Now, at the same time, and I’ve learned this in all areas of life, not just the entertainment business, the percentage of people that can really execute is small and does not increase exponentially by making a lot more shows.
The democracy of technology doesn’t necessarily mean great content. That kid with a camera in Ohio that Coppola was talking about isn’t necessarily a genius.
Exactly. I mean, it’s corollary to my whole theory of any given calendar, period. Whether a 100 movies are made or 600 movies are made in one year, there’s really going to be handful of it you can actually watch. It’s not a linear relationship and that’s true with TV. When people say there’s still a lot of terrible stuff on TV and there’s just more of it, that’s probably partially true.
The point is, opportunities for people who do execute well, to execute more, has expanded. People who are really good at visual storytelling now have more opportunities and more outlets to tell stories. I think that’s a good thing. The reason I don’t see a ceiling on the current wave of television and don’t feel it’s a bubble that will crash is because the smart people I know don’t have enough time to execute all the ideas they have. You know what I mean? They have shit pouring off of them that they want to do and they’re just trying…they’re not going to run out of ideas.
We haven’t even scratched the surface yet. It’s also like saying there’s nothing left to paint. We’ve had enough paintings. There’s always new knowledge. There’s always another idea. There’s always another filmmaker who you go, “Let’s throw some money at that person.”
