facebook_pixel Press "Enter" to skip to content

Looking to start your TV writing journey?

Posts tagged as “CSI”

Interview with CSI:NY’s Hill Harper

Interview with CSI:NY’s Hill Harper

A month and a half after my interview with CSI:NY‘s actor Hill Harper, here it finally is online.
Why would you care you ask?
Well, for one, he talks about online technology, and especially Twitter, in relation to TV and his show. And as you’ll see, the guy loves Twitter.
There’s also that part about the future of TV and how budgets are getting sliced.
And I don’t watch CSI.

Interview conducted on July 2nd
(Thanks to Toutelatele.com)

Can you talk a little about your atypical journey to acting?

Hill Harper (HH): When I went to college, to Brown University, I studied theatre, but I didn’t know if I was going to make a career out of it. I certainly wanted to go to grad school, so I decided to do a joint degree at the Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Law School. That is where I met President Obama, he and I were classmates. I just really felt at the time that I loved acting, and I loved being an artist. I think all of us come to a realization, maybe sometimes earlier in life, maybe sometimes later in life, that nothing else matters except following your heart. I really do believe that you’ve got to do what you love. That was reinforced when my uncle passed away when I was very young. He was 45 years old, and I was in law school. I realized that in life, nothing’s promised. Too many people I know put off saying I’m going to do this when, etc. And I’m the type of person who said: “you know what, what’s in my heart I’m going to follow.”

How do you feel about your CSI:NY character?

HH: I love that my character, Dr. Sheldon Hawkes, breaks many stereotypes. He’s the most intelligent character on the show. All the other characters have to come to my character for answers. It’s not the typical portrayal of the African American male on television and in the media in general. I like breaking stereotypes.

What do you think of the two other CSI shows?

HH: I think it’s better acted; I’m going to be honest. Not to take anything away from their shows, but I know our actors are the best, in my opinion.

In what ways did CSY:NY succeed in differentiating itself from other shows?

HH: If you look at the stories, they’re unique and interesting, and that starts with your writing. I don’t care how good your actors are, if you don’t have great writing, there’s no way you can have a good show. Really, television is all about the scripts. We’re in a wonderful time right now for American television. I call it the golden age of television. The best TV shows in the world at the moment are coming out of the US. I think that’s all about the cultivation of really good writing talent. They’ve been doing a great job. At the same time, you see the quality of American films decreasing. So it’s interesting in a time where the quality of American television is going up, the quality of American films is going down in comparison to the filmmaking around the world. I really do think the big difference has to do with the writing talent.

A lot of directors, writers, and even some actors, are moving to web-based content. Would you be interested in working on a creatively-strong web-series, even if it would mean a pay cut and reaching only a tenth of your current CSI audience?

HH: A lot of that depends on the content. I’m more of an artist who wants to do great content. If it’s great content, it doesn’t matter. I mean, I do theatre too and that’s a very small audience. That’s only the actual number of people that can actually fit in the actual seats. So, it’s not about reaching. Certainly doing a show like CSI:NY, where we reach millions and millions of people worldwide every week, that’s wonderful. But, it’s still to me about the content.

I know you use Twitter a lot, and we’re seeing a lot of celebrities now using it. What do you think is its primary appeal?

HH: Unlike Facebook and MySpace where it’s just so long, it takes time, Twitter is short-hand. With Twitter, I could literally within 30 seconds, in the middle of this interview, tweet and have responses. That’s the quickness of it. Technology is supposed to enhance your life, not detract it. You can get to a point where you feel chained to Facebook, where you have to go on, read it all. It’s just too much. With Twitter, it’s instantaneous. I’m going to be the first actor that I know of, certainly on my show, that is going to be tweeting from the set. I’m even tweeting live, asking questions to the audience: “Do you want me to wear glasses?”, or, “this is what this scene is about, do you want me to drink coffee?” I’m going to allow the audience to interact. It’s going to be three levels: my character Dr. Hawkes, me, Hill Harper, and the audience relating to both through Twitter. I’m excited about this. I want that feedback worldwide. The audience will feel they have an impact on the show, and when they see the scene, they’re like “I remember when he was tweeting about that!” I’m really interested in using technology in all ways.

Isn’t that becoming too dependent on reaction and feedback though?

HH: I think that you can pick and choose. As an artist, you need your own point of view or you’re not interesting. But we don’t do art in a vacuum. It’s meant to be seen, or else you’re masturbating. There’s always this tension. I have friends that don’t read critics or reviews, because they say, well, if I read the good reviews and I believe them, then I have to believe the bad reviews too. I think that everyone can figure out for themselves how much interaction they can have versus not. Certainly, if it s
tarts taking away from who you are, like if you’re reading reviews and it starts to change your work in a negative way, then stop. If you’re tweeting and you’re having an interaction with your audience, and it starts making yourself too self-conscious, and it’s affecting the way you do things, then stop. I think we can all find our own way. The more people you can welcome in, to who you are and the work you do, and allow them to be part of it in whatever way, can heighten the experience. Because everything that we do, I believe, should cause an experience.

Would you be interested in writing an episode for your show?

HH: The writers are so good at what they do so specifically, and it would just take me so long to write an episode, I wouldn’t be interested in that. I’d be more interested in directing an episode. I may get that opportunity to do it later on this year. I’m hoping to, but it’s very political when it comes to actors directing. Every actor wants to direct an episode and thinks they can, so it’s very political getting the opportunity. This is the last year of my contract, so we’ll see what happens.

How do you see the show’s future?

HH: I would like to stay with CSI and do a couple more seasons. But, you know, Without a Trace just got cancelled. It’s a good example of a top show that they decided was just too expensive to continue. You just don’t know what’s going to happen. The entertainment business is changing very quickly, and I think if you’re smart in the business, you have to think about other things. The days of sitting back on a show, thinking that you’re character is not getting killed off, are over. Just look at how they did the last episode of our fifth season: the entire cast was in a bar and they shot up the entire bar. You don’t know who’s going to live or die. And they’re negotiating with people. The creative and the business side are getting much more linked in a way that I don’t think is necessarily good. It’s a little manipulative. It gets negotiation advantage in a way, but at the same time that’s the reality of the business. Its called show-business not show-art, they have to make money or they can’t produce the show. And if the advertising revenues are dropping, we have to make changes. This year we’re making changes like special effects. I know we’re going to be shooting on HD digital format rather than film for the first time. They’re definitely making certain changes that are going to affect different things. But, at the end of the day, what I think has made CSI:NY so good is the writing. All television begins with the writing, period. We have the best writers in my opinion.

What other projects do you have?

HH: My third book, called The Conversation, is coming out in September. It’s my first book directed towards adults. The previous two were motivational books for teens and this book is about relationships. It’s from a single man’s perspective. It’s going to be interesting to see how it’s received. I purposely push buttons in it. It’s all about the idea of sparking conversation and communication between men and women, hopefully to make for successful relationships. I have a non-profit foundation, the Manifest Your Destiny Foundation, where I give scholarships to low-income young men and women. I also do a lot of speaking around the country, so I’ll continue doing that. The state department has sent me on two missions to speak to young people; they sent me to Italy and to Turkey. All of this because of my relationship with President Obama and because they know what I do with young people. It’s really great. That’s why I love doing a show such as CSI, it has such an international reach that it offers me a platform to speak to young people around the world that I otherwise wouldn’t have. I think that that can be a positive benefit. Any celebrities can use their platform for positive or for not so positive in a way. I personally believe that what’s the use of having a platform if you’re not going to do something good or positive with it.

From the inside

Let’s begin with the announcement of a new drama.
Shawn Ryan has, in addition to FX’s upcoming Terriers, another series in preparation for the FOX network (with Lie to Me): Ridealong, about cops in Chicago.
“It should be less serialized than Grey’s Anatomy but more than CSI.”
Ryan says that an event in the pilot will set off the series’ overarching mythology (and ramifications). I’m thinking something akin to Terry Crowley’s death in the Shield‘s pilot episode.
There’s also going to be a unique take on the cop drama genre, according to Ryan, that will allow Ridealong to differenciate itself from The Shield, Hill Street Blues, and other Southland.
The new show should also shoot on location, meaning in Chicago.

Amy Chozick at the Wall Street Journal has a great article on ‘the women behind Mad Men‘.


In case you didn’t know (like me before I read the above article), seven of the nine writing team members are women.
There are other great tidbits about the show and how close certain storylines are from actual real-life situations the various writers have faced.

And finally, looks like Battlestar Galactica‘s Edward James Olmos is joining Michel Gondry’s team on the Green Hornet.
Olmos facing Seth Rogen and Nicolas Cage?
I want to see that now.

Buried (Script) – Review

Buried (Script) – Review

There has been a script going around with a lot of buzz, Buried.
One word to describe it: intense.
This was probably one of the fastest read I’ve done of a script.
It is very engaging despite it’s bleak (even depressing?) aspect.

The movie will star Ryan Reynolds in the title role and will be directed by Spanish filmmaker Rodrigo Cortés. The script was written by Chris Sparling.

As for the story, it’s pretty straight-forward.
A man named Paul wakes up to find himself inside a sealed coffin.
He has been buried alive and only has with him a few precious items, including a Zippo lighter and a cellphone with two battery bars and one reception bar left.
Speaking of, the phone brand that gets a deal to be in the movie will most likely make a killing (no pun intended). Besides its obvious basic call function, the object’s other functions (video, MMS, etc.) are really detrimental to the whole plot.
There are a few other stuff in there that you get to discover with Paul, such as a knife and a candle.

To answer the first question that probably popped into your mind: Yes, the whole movie is literally 90 minutes in a coffin. It’s virtually a one-man show.

At first glance, the story might remind you of a famous 2005 CSI episode directed by Tarantino: Grave Danger.
Although in some ways pretty similar (a few of the coffin components are there, such as the use of fire ants at one point), the two stories are dissimilar in the way they’re depicting the whole “kidnapped and buried alive” plot.
Whereas the CSI episode delves more into the rescue efforts, Buried is a first-person account of a man having actually been buried alive.

Let’s check the script now.
Regarding the downsides, the reason for Paul being down there is almost stereotypical one might say. You find it out early on in the script, and even you can easily guess it by just knowing the country it takes place in, Iraq.

A few moments also made me unintentionally laugh, like some of the dialogues:

JABIR
Breathe no breathe, American? Ah?
Breathe no breathe?
PAUL
What? I don’t know what you’re
saying. Who is this?
JABIR
Infidel American can breathe no
breathe?
PAUL
No, I can’t breathe.

Sounds like a parody for a second.

There was this one Human Resources phone call around the end of the movie that is pretty far stretched as well.

A couple of physics-defying moments were present, such as the phone having reception even though it’s buried in the middle of the desert.
The flame from the candle should also burn oxygen much faster than it does in the movie.

Finally, one thing that a lot of people have noticed about the script is its use of prose-like writing, which is somewhat awkward given the fact that this is, you know, a script.
You get to learn things you’re not supposed to know, and it’s visually/auditorily impossible to guess said facts.
An early example:

He tries to remember the Safe Number he was given.
With the phone open and ready to be dialed, Paul struggles to recall the information.

How are you supposed to convey on screen that he’s remembering not just a phone number, but his “safe number”?
Did I mention that this is the first time in the whole script this mysterious number has been brought up?

Anyway, despite those few quarrels I had with the script, it is really so intense that it makes you overlook those minor mistakes.
The ambiance has kind of a Saw-esque quality to it (the first movie) given its suppressing feel throughout. You’re almost left gasping for air. The film will certainly not be for the claustrophobics out there.

The ending was very strong as well I thought.
I’m not going to spoil if he gets out or not, but there is at least one final gut-punch that you don’t see coming and is, in my mind, even more powerful than what happens at the end.

It will be extremely interesting to see the final result and how all this will turn out on screen.
Though the script doesn’t call for it, perhaps the director won’t be able to resist the urge of making intercuts with the outside world (especially during the phone calls).
If the movie is done without any intercuts nor flashbacks nor any other sceneries than what is written in the script, then bravo.

Ultimately, the script is definitely a page-turner and the movie promises to certainly be as exciting (especially with Reynolds as the lead), as long as no major changes are made and the oppressing feel is kept intact.