You’re both big Shakespeare buffs. And this story felt like a play – so much hinges on dialog between two people in a room.
Absolutely. The writing is brilliant. And it’s nice in television from time to time to use the chops you develop in the theater and this was one of those times.
Did you two get much of a chance to prep together?
Not a whole lot, but some. And if you’re going to do one of these things where you can’t sort of work your way up to it slowly, slowly, slowly over weeks and weeks of rehearsal, sometimes just diving in is a lot better than a halfway measure. That’s particularly true if you’re surrounded by people who are willing to do it too. Mark Rydell and Judy Davis were totally ready for it, totally up for it, and that makes it infinitely easier to do.
Mark Rydell was a producer on your film The Man in the Moon, but this was new for you working with him as a director.
No, I’ve never worked with him as a director, and that’s a whole different ball of wax. This was a brand new experience, and it was great. I’d work with him again right away.
[Your former Law & Order co-star] Elisabeth Röhm is doing one of these too – I assume that’s a coincidence.
There’s a lot of randomness in show business, as I’m sure you’ve seen. We all keep in touch – though I don’t see Elisabeth fairly often.
You’ve been an activist for certain causes – is it possible to be an activist for smart television programming like Masters of Science Fiction?
I don’t know how you would express that except by trying to do as much of it as you can. The kind of TV we get is partly up to the system, because the system tends to repeat itself and become more and more like itself over time, unless something interrupts it. But the other side of it is, the audience has the final say. If they turn on intelligent, exciting, and interesting television, there’ll be lots more of it. And if they don’t, there won’t.
Isn’t there is a lowest common denominator factor, though, which can work against smart TV?
Well, I think Law & Order is smart television as well. I don’t think television as it’s presently constituted necessarily has to be dumb. It takes some commitment on the part of the network, and it takes some dumb luck for the audience to find the show before time’s up, and time is up awfully fast. There are enough smart people out there to support a show like this, or like Law & Order, for a very long time to come. It’s just a matter of figuring out how to thread the needle.
So when you’re finally done with Law & Order, assuming that’s possible –
Ha!
– what kind of project would you like to turn your mind to?
I can tell you what I’d like to do, which includes lots and lots of theater. There are a number of projects that I would like to see come to fruition as a producer, including telling to story of [turn-of-the-century financier] Andrew Mellon. It’s a mammoth story, but it’s really, really interesting to me, and I think it has a lot of bearing on the present. I want to work on the development of it and I want to have a hand in the producing of it, and I’d be very happy to act in it in any capacity if it helps to get the story done. I’m more interesting in getting the story done than in the part – but it’s a great part.
Thanks for taking the time to talk to us.
Thanks, it was fun.
