Interview: Simon Baker (Land of the Dead)

From:Dread Centre
Date:Jun 23, 2005



At the recent press conference for Land of the Dead, which was where our most recent interview with George Romero came out of, a lot of the stars of Land that were supposed to appear were unable to, but luckily star Simon Baker was not among them. Baker took the time to chat with the press about his work in Land and what might be next for Romero...enjoy!

Question: I wanted to ask about your first Dead experience. It said in the notes you were 17 when you saw the first one? Do you remember it and who you were with....?

Simon Baker: What kind of detail can I go into with this? Can I be incriminated? Can I be impeached? I worked at a restaurant - most actors used to be waiters, so I hated waiting on tables cause I wasn’t an actor at the time. But I liked to wash dishes in restaurants, because I was behind the scenes. So I used to wash dishes and there was this guy that worked next to me and after work we’d have a drink, he was a wealthy kid and lived in a high-rise building, I think his father was really wealthy, he said, "let’s go to my place and we’ll watch this movie". We go into this beautiful big apartment and its all dark; he’s living there like this sort-of student and his old man’s paying the bill, so it’s a really dodgy kind of vibe. Then he puts the movie on and it was Dawn of the Dead. I was a little high and I was just like "What the hell is this man?" It’s like two o’clock in the morning...so that was my first experience. Am I going to get in trouble for that?

Q: I wanted to ask you about getting in the mind-set for a film like this, because when you’re on the set there are all these people in the heavy make-up and everything; it must feel kind of silly. So getting in the mind-set of being taken seriously, how do you do that? What’s that like for you?

SB: It took a little time. The first day that I shot, I think it was the scene with the Dead Reckoning and zombies getting run over by the truck. I kept walking around just laughing because, you know, there’s a lot of people on the film crew and everyone was so obsessed with watching it back on the monitors, these bodies getting crushed underneath the wheels and getting excited as to whether it was right or not and having to redo it. Peter Grunwald, who’s one of the producers, is sitting next to me - he’s a great guy - he’s sitting there in his suit. He looks down and I just said "this is crazy...grown men concerned about getting the right splatter of this body". He goes "I know, and I’m Ivy League educated". He laughs and sort of shakes his hands. So yeah, it took a while. Walking into the catering area for lunch and seeing tables of people sitting there with half their face sort of eaten away. Occasionally someone would say "Hi Simon" and I’d have no idea who it was; it would be someone from the crew or something "Oh, it’s Gina. Hi Gina, how are you today? Good, good." So that was always really weird.

Q: Could you talk a little bit about how George would balance the directing of the actors with the make-up and the effects work; how he would keep at an actors pace while also making a zombie movie?

SB: George was really generous with us as actors. He sat down with us all individually, made sure that we all understood what the story was, what the deal was. And he let us go a fair bit. Leguizamo and I worked together a bit in my hotel room, working out certain stuff so that the characters were defined and different. Often, with a lot of pieces when there are conflicting characters, the characters end up becoming the same kind of character and we wanted to make them very clearly defined. George welcomed that. But then on the set, you have a question, George would be right there or he’d sort of drop the zombies and then do this.

It was a very piecey film to shoot because a lot of it is cut back to different zombies. He had his whole make-up effects guys there, Greg Nicotero and that whole crew, so they’d have their little meetings we, the actors, would be doing our thing. "Where’s the zombie? Oh he’s going to be there? Right. He’s still in make-up?" So we’re shooting it before the zombie’s even there. It’s like "can someone sort of stand there so I know where it’s going to be?" It’s piecey and separated, but George is fine; seamlessly goes from one thing to the other. Watching him direct the zombie stuff is fantastic because he knows exactly what works and what doesn’t. It’s like a mathematician; he can see the equation from every single shot. You see him putting all the pieces together in his head. He knows - you go "Oh, I thought that was going to work", but then he lets you see why it wouldn’t and moves on.



Q: To horror fans, the first three films are like the holy trilogy as Star Wars is to sci-fi fans. Did you feel any extra pressure trying to live up to those first three films, what with it being twenty two years later; almost similar to how when Lucas went back and made new Star Wars films?

SB: I felt the pressure for George, but personally I didn’t feel that much pressure. I thought that it was kind of very much "due", you know? It was the right time to make another one; almost overdue. It’s interesting working with the make-up effects guys, because they’re so entrenched in the genre; they know every detail and everything about it. So you’ve got twenty guys walking around the set at all times that are encyclopedias of the genre, so you can find out information. I think the most important thing for me, with my character - and you know I’m the straight guy - is to tap into what these zombies are and where they fit in, that’s the moral compass thing. The most important thing was just to try and find the truth in that for George, I didn’t want to send that up at all. But no, I didn’t really feel that kind of pressure. Once you see George on the set, you know he knows exactly what he’s doing.

Q: You describe yourself as playing the straight guy role. What else did you feel you could bring to the role?

SB: Well, my role is a mercenary - that’s what they say - I shoot zombies and get supplies and all that sort of stuff, so I thought straight away, that if you create a conflict with this guy; if you make him essentially at his core a pacifist, then there’s automatically a conflict with him in the time in the place. So I just played around with that idea. He’s also a guy who is kind of a leader. Then if you make the guy somewhat anti-social, then he’s a leader that has people with him that he doesn’t want to be responsible for, there’s another conflict. They’re not obvious conflicts. He doesn’t want money. He doesn’t want the more obvious things that Dennis Cholo’s character wants. He’s trying to work himself out. It’s kind of a more internal conflict; personally.

And he has this notion that maybe there are no zombies in Canada, or maybe there’s no Kaufman in Canada. I think his whole thing is - it’s referenced a few times in the script, where he says "it’s good shooting, there’s no such thing as nice shooting". He’s a guy that sort of looks at it the other way and says, "Well, hang on a second. We’re the ones killing each other here", and Cholo and Kaufman are the example of that.


Q: Because you were there for all the make-up and all the behind the scenes stuff, is it possible to still be disturbed by any of the gore you were seeing around you or are you able to just laugh it off?

SB: It’s funny - I’ve seen it twice now. I saw it once without an audience, and I’m not very vocal when I watch films generally, the most laugh you’ll get out of me is "hmm hmm", that’s it. But I found myself, at a few of the moments moaning and groaning very loudly and then afterwards laughing because I actually enjoyed the fact that it was able to make me do that. Then I watched it again last night, with an audience and yeah, still those moments shock me. I even know when they’re coming now but they still shock me and scare me. There’s some very precious gore moments in there that just slipped in - I know they that only just slipped in because the ratings people would say "You’ve got to shorten the shot of that. You can’t show any more of that". I know that since George finished this cut, he’s been up in Canada working on an unrated cut, which is going to be crazy (laughs).

When I watched Day of the Dead again before I started this movie - my manager bought me the three DVD’s after I met with George so I could check them out again - It was hard for me to watch. I’ve got three kids and I put it on the tely in my bedroom and sat there and was like "whoa". I looked over at my wife who was looking up over her book going "What is this?" I’ve come a long way from shooting on the movie when I would get absolutely excited about the idea that they’re shooting some sort of gag on the splatter unit; an insert shot of someone’s arm getting bitten or whatever. As soon as I wasn’t working on the main set I’d run over to watch it. I like the craftiness of it and I like the way it’s all put together. Then when you see it in the context of the film it’s really cool.

Q: I wanted to ask you what you think this movie in particular, without putting too fine a point on it, is actually about; aside from the obvious stuff. It seems George is making a lot of points about where we are today. In your mind, what is this film really about?

SB: Well, I think if you asked all of us that question we’d all have different answers. You guys likewise. For me, a lot of the movie, with my character and the way I approached it and the stuff that I thought about a lot, was the idea of having and making decisions on your own and not being told or believing the propaganda. You’ve got to understand, the time we were shooting this the US presidential election was taking place. In fact I can tell you the night and the scene we were shooting when it was happening; you know, the actual countdown. We were shooting all night and I’d go back to the hotel, turn the tely on just to chill out and then it’d just be CNN and it’d be all the propaganda. It was just so hard for anyone to have their own idea or their own opinion without being influenced by the publicity machines of each of the parties; the spin of someone’s opinion in the newspaper or CNN. The whole thing is not targeted for the individual to make up his or her own mind. Everyone’s being influenced by different things. That was a major thing for me because my character tends to want to go against the grain and say "No, no. This is what I think" or "I’m trying to work out what I think. I don’t buy into this, I don’t subscribe to that way of thinking. I want to look at it more like this". That was what it was about for me.



Q: Are you contracted for maybe a sequel, perhaps World of the Dead? Are you quite surprised at, with the considerable low budget the film was - I heard it was 37 million or something, that it was actually a lot better than the remake of Dawn of the Dead?

SB: I don’t know what your question was there, but I think the budget was maybe even lower than that. I’m not sure. I don’t know if I’m allowed to say. Am I going to get shot when I leave the room? I’m sure there’s people watching me somewhere. I am - yeah, there is an option for a second one. Who knows what’s going on inside George’s head? He’s probably got things already put together already with ideas and stuff. He’s mysterious, he’s Mr. Mysterioso. He doesn’t really let too much on and he’s a really special guy. I think there’s obviously room for it. I like the movie a lot, that’s why I saw it twice and I’m a pretty harsh critic. A very harsh critic, in fact. There’s not really much stuff that I’ve done that I was like "I’m gonna go see that again" a week later, and I actually want to see again. I like seeing it in an audience; it’s a different type of movie to see because universally people within the theater have the similar reaction and then come down from that reaction at the same time. I’ll tell you, it’s kind of nice to be in a theater like that and feel the presence of the rest of the audience. Did I politic my way out of that question? Good. Cheers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks to Universal for arranging our time with Mr. Baker, and of course to the man himself for answering our questions. Land of the Dead opens on Firday, June 24th, so make sure you’re there all weekend to support the triumphant return of George A. Romero!

From Dread Central

Terrors of the Dead

From:SHIVERS
Date:May 2005 issue #120
Posted Pam

Simon Baker talks about his roles in Hideo Nakata's THE RING 2 and
George Romero's forthcoming zombie extravaganza LAND OF THE DEAD

Simon Baker is getting the hang of this genre stuff. A few
years back he co-starred with Val Kilmer and Carrie-Anne Moss
in RED PLANET. And now, the Aussie actor can be found making
back-to-back turns in THE RING 2 and LAND OF THE DEAD.
"It's just a coincidence that I've done two of these in a row,"
Baker says. "It was just two straight projects I couldn't
turn down."

[snip RING 2 synopsis]

"I loved the first movie," enthuses Baker, who's probably best
known to the masses for his three-year stint on the American
television series THE GUARDIAN. "I loved it. It was very well
made, very sophisticated in its execution. I thought it was
intriguing. And it was scary. I enjoyed people's reactions to it.
It took me a while to see it. I hadn't seen it immediately.
When I saw people were like, 'Oh my God!' So it was a real
experience to see it with an audience. After I saw Gore
Verbinski's version of THE RING I went out and rented the
original Japanese version. It was interesting. Some scenes
were almost exactly the same and then the remake shifted and
changed some things around. Visually, the Japanese film has a
different cinematic style to it. If you look at Hideo's films
they tend to have a real eeriness about them. THE RING 2
certainly does. He sort of hangs on a shot for a reasonably
long period of time. You feel like something's going to happen.
A lot of the time nothing happens at all, but it creeps you
out anyway. Like I said, this was one of those films I
couldn't turn down. I wanted to work with Naomi, who I knew,
and she was everything I hoped she'd be. David is a good
kid and a talented actor. And I loved watching Hideo work."

LAND OF THE DEAD

As for LAND OF THE DEAD, that one stars Asia Argento, Dennis
Hopper, John Leguizamo and Baker, who all signed on for the
opportunity to take direction from zombie movie maestro George
A. Romero. "That could be classified in the Horror genre,
but it shouldn't, really," Baker insists. "George Romero is
a genre [unto] himself. I'd heard about Romero films before
I did this, but I'd never really taken the time to watch most
of them. I had an experience with one when I was a kitchen
hand in a restaurant. I was about 17. After work I went back
to another kitchen hand's house to watch a Romero movie and it
blew my mind. When I watched it -- it was the one in the mall,
DAWN OF THE DEAD -- I couldn't believe it and I couldn't get
over it. I remember that vividly, but I hadn't revisited them
until my manager sent me the script for LAND OF THE DEAD.
My manager was a massive fan of the DEAD films and he said,
'You've gotta meet with George. He wants to meet with you.
You've got to meet with him.' I said 'OK' and I met
with George, and he was just fantastic. I just loved
the guy immediately. I thought, 'This guy is great.
He's really cool.' He's such the antithesis of what
you'd imagine. I liked the guy so much I went home,
watched all of his films and then I said, 'Sure, I'm in.'"

SURROUNDED BY ZOMBIES!

Baker found himself surrounded by zombies, lots and lots of
zombies. And he loved every minute of it. If he wasn't shooting
a scene with the oozing, bleeding creatures, the actor notes,
he actually sought the buggers out. "It's fantastic,"
he says. "It's fantastic. You start getting really into it.
During the show, the crew split into two units. We had one unit
that was always constantly setting up, and we called them the
'splatter unit.' They were always doing little effects shots
and stuff like that, with lots of blood, the blood and guts sort
of shots. So George was trying to get between the two sets,
going backward and forward. I'd be doing the drama stuff mostly,
but whenever I had a minute I was off to the splatter unit
because you just get so into the makeup effects and stuff.
I never thought I would, but I got into it. And it gets gory.
It gets as gory as it can get, as [gory as it's] allowed to get.
It's a Romero film. And I guarantee you the DVD will be even
gorier than the cinema version."

[snip RED PLANET synopsis]

"That was madness," Baker recalls.
"That was madness, that film. We shot in Jordan. We shot in
the desert that Lawrence of Arabia crossed. We shot there
and we shot in the outback of Australia. And we [shot] at
a studio in Sydney. That was a pretty bizarre experience.
It was rather tough to shoot in 110-degree heat... in
our spacesuits. Our fingers were poaching like sausages.

"That was an experience," he adds. "Mark Canton produced that
film and I just worked with him again on LAND OF THE DEAD, and
we had a lot of laughs talking about those times on RED PLANET.
It was a tough movie. It was a tough movie. But I lived
through the experience. And that's what I remember. That's
what I remember about any film. The results of the film and
how it turned out are secondary. When I watch a film I think
about what happened that day we shot a scene. So RED PLANET
was a good experience. They're all good experiences."

Next up for Baker is 42.4 PERCENT, a dramatic romance in which
he shares the screen with Sanaa Lathan of ALIEN VS PREDATOR fame.
In the film, Baker and Lathan play a couple in an interracial
relationship. And after that? Baker doesn't know what,
precisely, is following 42.4 PERCENT, but the future looks bright.
"You know, I'm always happy when I'm able to keep working and
doing thing[s] that challenge me," he says. "I went from THE
RING 2 onto LAND OF THE DEAD, which will come out the week
before Hallowe'en. And I'm about to start on this interracial
love story. I'm really happy with the way my career is going.
A year ago I was on a television show. I got THE RING 2 while I
was still doing the show. It was my hiatus movie. But I found
out on my first day of shooting RING 2 that my show had been
cancelled, and it was no longer my hiatus movie. So I just
want to keep moving forward and do the best work I can do."

From Shivers #120

Dead Speaks To The Living

From:Sci Fi Wire
Date:20-JUNE-05

George A. Romero, director of the zombie sequel film Land of the Dead, said the movie can be seen as a metaphor of the political and economic climate, which he believes seems to favor the wealthy, in the same way his three previous Dead films can be read as commenting on their times. "It's different than in [1978's] Dawn of the Dead," Romero said in an interview. "In Dawn of the Dead it's about the stuff and consumerism, and if you've got a pair of Nikes, you know? This is much more, again, modeled after this administration. It's all executive. Now the stuff is Mont Blancs [pens] and Audemars Piguet [a brand of expensive watch], I don't know. So now it's all fancy stuff for people who can afford it, and the administration is dealing in big, big bucks and doling out little bits to people. As [Dennis Hopper's character] says, 'Keep them off the streets.' And the ... service personnel are relegated to a very different lifestyle. So it just seemed natural [to do this one], because that's what this is really about, right? I mean, it's Halliburton. So it's a different era, where you have money."

Simon Baker stars in Land of the Dead as Riley, a mercenary who procures supplies for the human survivors in the last remaining city, a walled-in metropolis surrounded by a wasteland occupied by the walking dead. Baker, similarly, thinks the movie can be read as a metaphor. "I think if you asked all of us that question, we'd all probably have pretty different answers, and you guys likewise," Baker said in a separate inteview. "For me, a lot of the movie, ... was the idea of having and making decisions on your own and not being told [what to believe] or believing the propaganda. I mean, you've got to understand, the time we were shooting this, the U.S. presidential election was taking place [in the fall of 2004]. In fact, I can tell you the night, the scene we were shooting when it was happening, you know, the actual countdown. And we were shooting on nights and I'd go back to the hotel and turn the telly on just to sort of chill out, and there'd just be CNN, and it'd be all the propaganda. And it was just so hard for anyone to have their own idea or their own opinion without being influenced by the publicity machines of each of the parties, you know? The spin or someone's opinion on CNN. And then who they were owned by or affiliated with, and it was like, 'Hang on a second!' How can one person [decide]? The whole thing is not targeted for the individual to make up their own mind. Everyone's being influenced by a different thing. So that was like a major thing for me, because my character tends to want to go against the grain and say, 'No, this is my [opinion], or this is what I think. Or I'm trying to work out what I think, I don't buy into this, I don't subscribe to that way of thinking. I want to sort of look at it more like this. And that's what it was more about for me." Land of the Dead opens June 24.

From Sci Fi Wire

Romero Ready With More Dead

From:Sci Fi Wire
Date:17-JUNE-05

George A. Romero, who returns after two decades to the genre he created with the upcoming zombie film Land of the Dead, told SCI FI Wire that the movie may mark the beginning of a new round of Dead films. "I mean, if this opens strong, I might be in a situation where I have to do another one of these or will be asked to do another one of these right away," writer/director Romero said in a news conference. "In which case I've sort of left the characters, you know, the truck and those characters, [intact]. I'd want to almost make it chapter two of the same movie, if that happens, and just sort of finish the story."

In Land of the Dead, Romero picks up the story of an America overrun with walking dead, which he last visited in 1985's Day of the Dead, the third movie in a trilogy that began with 1968's Night of the Living Dead. In Land of the Dead, Simon Baker plays Riley, the leader of a group of guns-for-hire who help sustain a walled city, one of the last remaining outposts of living humans. Romero says he has ideas for more films using the same characters, which include a feisty female warrior played by Asia Argento.

"I have an idea of ... how to go with it, and I would think of it in my mind as almost one film," Romero said. "If I had to do it like next year. Unless we get nuked or something and there's something else to talk about."

If a Land of the Dead sequel happens, it might affect Romero's ability to contribute a short film to Mick Garris' upcoming Masters of Horror anthology series for Showtime, he added. "If that happens, I may not be able to do the Masters of Horror. And I've been so tied up on this thing that I haven't been able to write a script for it. Mick sent me a couple of scripts. A couple of them are pretty nice. So I'm still hoping that I can get a couple of weeks and be able to do that. But I have a couple of other things that we're working on. Again, everything would get trumped if they want to do a sequel to this."

For his part, Baker confirmed that he's got an option to reprise the role of Riley in a Land of the Dead sequel. Land of the Dead opens June 24.

From Sci Fi Wire

Exclusive Interview: Simon Baker

Posted: Monday June 20th, 2005 4:00AM
Author: Paul Fischer
Location: Los Angeles, CA


Wearing black, thick-rimmed glasses, Australia's Simon Baker, best known to US audiences for his stint in TV's The Guardian, says that he was attracted to the politically-charged zombie thriller, Land of the Dead, for a variety of reasons, especially the chance to work with its legendary director, George A. Romero, as well as because it means doing something he has never done before. "You know, it's a part of both of those reasons," Baker explains, as we chat in a Beverly Hills hotel room. "I was never a fan of the genre or any genre specifically, but I like movies. If it's a good movie I like it, so I met with George and I really liked him and that was it. Then I went, looked at all of his films again, started thinking about them and realised what he was doing with these films, which ultimately factored into it as well," comments the 35-year old actor.

In the 4th instalment to George Romero's "Night of the Living Dead" series, and his first zombie film in two decades, the zombies have taken over the earth. The surviving humans live on a small secluded strip of land, with two sides cut off by rivers. The humans strive to survive, while outside the zombies are steadily evolving. The wealthy live in sealed skyscrapers as the poor fend for themselves on the streets. Protecting them is an enormous tank called Dead Reckoning, controlled by a group of people led by Simon Baker's Riley. But when Riley loses command of the tank to his second-in-command bent on destroying the city, he must save it from Dead Reckoning as those who walk beyond the walls of the city slowly develop new abilities and become a much greater threat to humankind.

While all Romero's films are part thriller and part social and political commentary, Baker sees that as being the underlying link between this latest film and its cult-like predecessors. "I think, politically, the time is so right for a film that's able to actually reflect certain odd areas of what our society is at the moment. He hasn't made a zombie film since the 80s, so a lot's happened. It's just good timing and it's hard to make movies that comment on things politically without them just becoming either a documentary or like a negative propaganda machine. This is an entertaining film in its own right, but it also has a little stab here and there which are very accurate. You can sort of scratch the surface and look a little deeper if you wish to, yet he doesn't shove it down your throat."

For Baker, who has always excelled in playing introspective characters, the challenge for him playing anti-hero Riley, is making him interesting. "Well he's incredibly flawed, you know. But what really drew me to the character, was that he was a kind of a contradiction in a sense. When you look at the film he's not exactly the most exciting character in it, because his dilemma is more of an internal one, where Leguizamo' s is just the opposite, in that he wants wealth and to live this lifestyle that's being sold. Ideally I sort of wanted to play the guy as a pacifist so automatically he was going to be separated from Leguizamo, and automatically there's conflict within him because of the nature of all he's forced to do for a living. I also sort of tried to play around the ideas of kind of classic 'nouveauish' things in characters, of him wanting to find a better place. These are all very personal little things that I could play within the character, but whether they translated or not, I'm not so sure." As to whether Baker can identify with his characters, the actor pauses slightly. "There are always elements that you can identify with in playing certain characters," he begins. "I can certainly identify with the politics of the guy. He's the guy that fits into the grey area, which, when you look at things these days, such as the media, etc, this character is almost disappearing off the face of the earth. When you look at the propaganda it's like you're either good or bad, and there's no one that's grey: you're black or white."

The Tasmanian-born actor began making a name for himself in local TV soaps E Street, Home and Away, Naked and 1994's Heartbreak High. In 1992, he first met actress Aussie actor Rebecca Rigg in a Sydney pub. He ultimately became "quite fascinated by her" - a case of opposites attract, having once been quoted as remarking "I am a country bloke and she's a city chick. I am a sort of surfie who's pretty laid back and relaxed and Rebecca is the energiser." On Christmas Eve, 1995, the young actor finally arrived in LA with Rebecca and first child Stella, with $3500 in his pocket.

Then he landed a small, but pivotal role, in L.A. Confidential, followed by roles in independent films, before 2001's The Guardian landed in his lap, and Baker, who lives his Malibu with his wife and now three children, hasn't looked back since. Though The Guardian was a god experience, Baker has no regrets about its demise. "It was a good experience for me on the basis of just being able to put in that many hours. It was interesting pulling scripts apart, putting them back together and shooting, and that was good, just like boot camp for three years." The downside, however, was the hours that kept away from his family. "Man, it was a drain and that's where the relief comes from, not actually being owned for a little bit. Like, now, I can have the day off, some time off, a week or a month off. The pressures of working those hours and dealing with my family were tough," he admits.

Baker says he won't necessarily rule out a return to television, but concedes he has never had any clear direction, as far as his career is concerned. "If you look at my career, I'm not exactly good at the business of: okay, now I should do this or now I shouldn't do that. I think that's because I'm a little too erratic, and, depending on certain moods and how I feel at certain times, certain things appeal to me in a different way." It also seems that the actor has consciously gone out of his way to do big, Hollywood movies, merely admitting that "the reality is, those opportunities have never really presented themselves to me." Yet, while Baker could have taken advantage of the success of L.A. Confidential, he chose not to be lured by the prospects of fame and celebrity. "I certainly don't crave what you have to give up for that." He says he is content to be where he is, in Hollywood's scheme of things. "I kind of fly under the radar pretty well, and I appreciate that." Asked if it is that sense of reality that keeps him grounded, Baker says, "I don't know, mate, I don't analyse that so much, I possibly think so."

Next, Baker will be seen in another new Indie film, 42.4 Percent, revolving around a professional black woman, determined to get married, who finds romance with a white working-class man. "it's an interracial love story and a very sweet movie." Baker also hopes that the Indie film Book of Love, which premiered at Sundance 2 years ago, will get a release. The film co-stars fellow Aussie Frances O'Connor, and explores infidelity and communication in a marriage that is falling apart. The film involves some very intimate moments with co-star O'Connor and the actor recalls first seeing the film at Sundance, seated next to his wife and watching him and O'Connor in some very torrid, on-screen moments. "It's really hard to watch anyone you know really well on screen and really get suspended. In Book of Love, I made my wife laugh and cry, and that moved me in itself, which means I did my job."

While Book of Love deals with a marriage in crisis, no such crisis exists off screen for Baker. Now married to Rebecca for over 12 years, and father of three, the actor says that they have survived "because we love each other." Yet he admits that it's not easy to put everything in perspective: the strong marriage, the family and of course the career. "Book of Love says that any relationship is difficult and the ones that look the easiest from the outside, are often hardest from the inside," Baker concedes. The actor adds that there was no question why he was keen to play the infallible husband in Book of Love.

"What's not to like about a character like this from an actor's perspective? It's such a great character." Nor did Baker have difficulty identifying with him. "I think every man can identify with him and that's what got ME. Mate, I'm in heaven with a character like that, because it's why I became an actor," Baker says. "It's a way to speak to people without sitting down and having a chat with everyone. It's a way to be able to speak to them and have people speak to themselves, try to question themselves and try to understand stuff. Films can be really powerful and don't HAVE to be massive extravaganzas. They can be incredibly personal. That character has a great arc and journey. It's probably the first time I can ever say that the character on the screen is exactly the way I was trying to do it."

Simon also hopes to do some more work back in Australia, and concedes that moving back is an option. "We go in and out of it all the time, where it's like, okay, let's go, let's pack it up let's go back and I'll just travel." And at this stage, Baker says, he is happy to take a break and spend time with his family. "Oh, man, after three years of doing a TV show and then going straight on to three movies back to back, I'm looking at scripts reluctantly," he adds, laughingly.


From Dark Horizons

Inside Land of the Dead-The Cast-Simon Baker

From:Movies Online
Date:June,16,2005

Our inside look at Land of the Dead continues with a look at the cast of George Romeros new movie. And it begins with a Golden Globe-nominated actor, Australian-born SIMON BAKER (Riley) who has an impressive background that spans both the stage and screen and has captured the attention of audiences worldwide. Baker has just wrapped production on the romantic comedy Something New from Focus Features starring opposite Sanaa Lathan. Lathan plays a professional African- American woman who is determined to get married and finds romance with a white working-class man, played by Baker. The film has no release date set. Baker was most recently seen in DreamWorks’ horror sequel The Ring Two, opposite Naomi Watts and Sissy Spacek. He plays David Rourke, a reporter who works at the local Asheville Gazette, alongside Watts’ character, Rachel Keller. He also recently starred in the independent film Book of Love, which screened in competition at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival. The film, written and directed by Alan Brown, also stars Gregory Smith and Frances O’Connor.

Other projects include Curtis Hanson’s Academy Award®-winning film L.A. Confidential, The Affair of the Necklace, Red Planet, Sunset Strip, Judas Kiss, Restaurant, Love from Ground Zero and Ang Lee’s critically acclaimed Ride With the Devil, which screened at the 1999 Deauville Film Festival and was also a gala presentation at the 1999 Toronto Film Festival. Baker starred in the highly rated, CBS drama The Guardian from 2001 to 2004. He portrayed a hardened corporate lawyer who was sentenced to work as a legal child advocate after being found guilty of drug possession. In the first season, Baker was recognized by the Hollywood Foreign Press with a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actor in a Drama Series. Other television credits include the lead roles in Disney’s CBS pilot The Last Best Place, Naked: The Blind Side Breakaway and a guest lead role in Sweat.

Inside Land of the Dead-The Casting-Simon Baker

From:Movies Online
Date:Jun,16,2005

Simon Baker was always at the top of the list to play Riley, commander of Dead Reckoning and the hero of the story. Canton and Goldmann were familiar with Baker’s work from Red Planet, a film on which they had all previously collaborated. “They thought very highly of him. He was just sensational, a great actor, perfect for the role but he’s also a wonderful guy. He’s great to have on the set. He keeps everybody up and light, and he has a terrific sense of humor,” comments Grunwald.

A native of Australia, Baker was mostly unfamiliar with Romero’s work, but after a crash course in the filmmaker’s oeuvre, quickly became enthused about the prospect of appearing in a George Romero film. “George’s films could be classified in the horror genre, but really, he’s a genre unto himself. I had an early experience with Dawn of the Dead, which I saw when I was 17, and I couldn’t get over it—I remember it vividly. But I hadn’t really revisited his films until my manager sent me the script for Land of the Dead. After I met with George, which was a great experience, I went home and watched all of his movies. Then, well, I was hooked. I had to do it.”

Gone But Not Forgotten

From:Gem Geek or Rare Bug
Date:August 25, 2004
Post by Graeme Burk

As you might have gathered from my assorted mumblings over the past 10 months, I am somewhat fond of the medium of television, particularly in its dramatic mode. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that I am just plain enamoured with television. I grew up on television and unlike the many who have been saying since I was a kid (and well before) that the medium was contributing to a cultural wasteland, I have always thought instead it was a benign cultural force. Good television, I feel, can contribute as much to the human condition as a good play, a good book, a good film, a good painting or even a good poem in iambic pentameter.

In fact, for the past few years I’ve been a subscriber to the notion that there has never been a better time to be a fan of television than right now. Admittedly, there’s still a lot of terrible television like The Swan, and a lot of mediocre television like The Apprentice (though I like it) and 8 Simple Rules (which is as banal as processed cheese, but eerily watchable since James Garner and David Spade came on board). Even so there’s a pervasive notion that there’s more good television now than ever before: The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, even The West Wing (though it’s taken a hit since Aaron Sorkin left) are supposedly leading the vanguard of a new wave of writer-driven, intelligent, television that’s popular, entertaining and even worth exercising a few brain cells.

And yet, my belief in good television, however, has been shaken recently. It probably hasn’t been shaken irrevocably—over the years I’ve weathered Hello Larry, Aaron Spelling, Glen A. Larson, the cancellation of WKRP in Cincinnati and The Simple Life. But I now certainly believe that the hype that we’re in the middle of a televisual golden age is just hype.

I blame my foul mood on the Boomtown DVD box set.

Boomtown was, for those of you who didn’t catch it the first time (and there were a fair number of you), ostensibly a crime drama. And yet (for most of the first season) that was more of a setup for stories about LA itself and the people who lived in it. The hook was that the each episode had its story unfold, Rashomon-like, from multiple points of view, with stories being told out of sequence but eventually connecting together like an intricate puzzle.

The DVD box set is well worth picking up. The pilot, which aired in September 2002, is probably the best TV pilot I’ve seen in recent memory. The regular characters—including some cops, a Deputy District Attorney, a reporter and a paramedic—were smartly drawn and the performances of the actors playing them were pitch perfect. Plus, the writing was smart and crisp and witty and the direction was big screen quality. And the format of the show made it fun to watch. To my astonishment, though, the show’s second episode is even better—creator Graham Yost uses the multiple POV format to create mini-movies about all the characters. The result transforms a plot that on paper seems like a second-rate NYPD Blue episode—dot-com rich guy stalks stripper he’s obsessed with—into a tale of broken, incomplete people worthy of Mamet.

Last night, I re-watched what I think is one of their best episodes, “The David McNorris Show”. And while the Rashomon-ing in this story reaches its zenith, this isn’t why it’s so good. The story follows one of the leads, the DDA David McNorris (played to perfection by Neal McDonough) over the course of a night wherein he self-destructs his marriage, his relationships and his career. It’s one of the most poignant and haunting depictions of a person entering spiritual death as I’ve ever seen on television.

In spite of this, the series was greeted with indifferent ratings. NBC shelved it for a while before completing the first season with a reduced number of episodes. Last year’s Emmy nominations—in a move that made the whole awards completely and utterly suspect— outright snubbed it, not even nominating Neal McDonough, who was far better than any of the ailing West Wing and 24 staples that choked the slate. (Not to mention Donnie Wahlberg and Mykelti Williamson who were also amazing).

NBC moved it to Law & Order: Special Victim’s Unit timeslot on Fridays and cancelled after two episodes in. But it wasn’t the river that got Boomtown, it was the fall that killed it. Between seasons, the suits at NBC—in concert with the producers, it seems— decided that the show was ‘too confusing’ and the series' raison d’être was completely dismantled. Gone was the multiple POV format, gone was the ‘stories about the city’ idea, gone was one of the best characters (Nina Gabrias’ reporter Andrea Miller). The first two episodes were about stopping jewel thieves that killed some cops.

In short, they made it just another cop show. And though it was, admittedly, a better than average cop show, the remnant who stayed from the last season was instantly alienated. Watching the remaining four or so episodes (NBC got them out around Christmas as filler), I saw that we were spared far worse as I watched Lana Parilla’s paramedic character—whose sole purpose has been to comfort and aid—inexplicably went to the police academy. The last episode started swinging more back to the ideas of the first season, but too little, too late.

It’s about the closest one can get to watching a TV show be emasculated.

If it was just Boomtown then I might not worry about the state of TV today. But Boomtown is part of what is, for me, a trifecta of brilliant television which received its walking papers during the 2003-04 television season.

As if to rub salt in my wounds, Global has been rerunning The Guardian nightly at midnight lately. This show was mostly ignored for the three years it was on the air. Which is a shame, because The Guardian was the kind of quality drama that should have gotten more play in the press, more Emmy nominations, and frankly, more faith than CBS placed in it this season.

It went against the grain for any TV series: the show was about Nick Fallin a self-centred, emotionally repressed ex-drug addict lawyer who was forced by court order to work in a Pittsburgh legal clinic, working with impoverished people somewhere in the midst of the grey areas of morality and the legal system. It was a series frequently without happy endings, and a lead character you wanted to slap hard sometimes. It was anything but Judging Amy.

The writing was always amazing: it was never about courtroom histrionics, just honest stories about the people caught between the cracks of the legal system. It was unflinchingly unsentimental, and incredibly smart.

It superb cast...which was never noticed by anyone. Dabney Coleman, as the father of the lead who also ran the family's blue chip law firm was never better--and that's saying something. And the star of the show, Simon Baker, gave the most amazing performances every week, playing a man too young to be haunted by so many demons. His performance broke just about every rule of TV acting: it was subtle; the fun and the power of Baker’s performance was in watching the disconnect between what Nick felt was right and his own inhibitions from doing it. Coleman and Baker, and writer producer David Hollander deserved Emmy nominations and industry accolades, or at least a few column inches in Entertainment Weekly.

They never got noticed.

The producers must have seen it coming as it pretty much set up the end of the series in the finale, ending with Simon Baker's character taking over as director of the legal clinic, finally accepting his destiny and finding himself, though hesitantly, home in the place where he should have been all along. I wanted to see what happened next, but it was a sweet ending in any event.

While Boomtown’s cancellation was something of a relief, The Guardian’s untimely end oddly hurt. It did decently, though perhaps unspectacularly, in the ratings (and CBS didn't help by yanking it off the schedule to give way to Century City which lasted all of ten minutes). The Guardian was was a good show, it was a smart show, it was the sort of show television should be doing more of, not less. Plus it was my Mom’s favourite TV show, which speaks volumes to me about how broad-based its viewer base was.

Finally there was the cancellation of Ed. That this sweet, smart, comedy never got a single nomination while Emmys were veritably festooned upon Everybody Loves Raymond is a sign that the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences is a corrupt institution and its members will be going to purgatory for a very, very long time.

Ed admittedly isn’t to everyone’s taste, but I count myself among its devoted fans. A sentimental romantic comedy about a lawyer who runs a bowling alley in a small town populated by his high school sweetheart and a cast of assorted eccentrics is probably the exact opposite of The Guardian. And yet, like the films of Frank Capra—filled to the brim with sentiment but also aware that the audience needed subtlety and intelligence to make the sentiment go down—Ed shared something in common with The Guardian and with Boomtown, in that it treated the audience as intelligent beings. If Ed and the love of his life Carol have to overcome obstacles, well they overcome them like adults often making decisions you don’t think they’d make because, well, they don’t make them in these sorts of show.

One of my favourite episodes was the season finale last year where Mike, Ed’s married best friend, finds himself hanging out with some nubile college students, one of whom makes a pass at him. The next morning, he tells his wife about it. Now tell me how many comedies would do that, and I’ll then point out that it turns out the wife appreciates his honesty. They did something similar this season when Ed, after an episode-long build-up, was propositioned by an attractive woman…and he turned the propsition down. Simple as that. I realized then, as now, we were onto something, well, unique: relational comedy premised on intelligence and trust between human beings.

The cast was on. And with all that rapid-fire self-aware dialogue like a Howard Hawks film written in the Internet age, they’d have to be. The town of Stuckeyville was populated with the greatest eccentrics on American television since Northern Exposure’s Cicely Alaska. Tom Cavanaugh kicks Ray Romano’s ass every day and twice on Sundays. He’s funny and heartfelt. Josh Randall as the best friend was a study in deadpan goofiness. And the double act of Michael Ian Black as the Bowling Alley employee with delusions of grandeur (or just plain delusions) and Daryl Mitchell as cocksure manager Eli Cartwright Goggins the third made television worth watching every week.

But again we have the same story; indifferent scheduling, whittling down the episode order and wrongheaded marketing leading to cancellation (fortunately, like the producers of The Guardian, Ed's producers sensed the end was nigh and wrapped everything up). Now, admittedly, Ed survived longer than any of this trifecta—four seasons—but it had more in it, I’m convinced of it.

All of these series, frankly, had more seasons in them. (As did Wonderfalls—the best freshman show of the year and it was cancelled after six episodes). I don’t think it’s down to low ratings for any of them either. Ten years ago, the network would have had more faith in these shows, acknowledging their value as niche programs or given them more space to gain an audience. Or, hell, given them much-deserved award nominations. But the days of keeping Hill Street Blues on for the hell of it is over. And I find it hard to believe that it’s been better than ever for dramatic TV if shows like Boomtown, The Guardian and Ed are unnecessarily euthanized in the same year.

From Gem Geek or Rare Bug

I Miss "The Guardian"

From:Thinking Weblog
Date:October 27, 2004
Posted by Shrode

It was a TV show that aired its last episode in May with little fanfare or notice. It had been airing on Tuesday Nights at 8pm (CST) on CBS. My wife and I watched it faithfully for all three seasons. What a great show. I suggested we watch the first episode when the show premiered thinking it would be sort of a replacement for “Early Edition”. We liked “Early Edition” because it was a fairly family friendly show about a likeable guy who helped somebody different every week, but without all the sappiness of “Touched By An Angel” and “Highway To Heaven”.

“The Guardian” was supposed to be about a corporate attorney who did community service in a “Children’s Legal Aid” office in Pittsburgh. It was that, but much more. We got a whole lot more than we bargained for. Initially the show was about the main character, Nick Fallin, helping a different kid each week. But it was far from sappy and sweet. Instead the show turned out to be gritty and realistic. The episodes rarely had neat endings, and were often sad. The show was hard to watch at times because it was so sad. But it was so realistic, so well written and so well done we couldn’t stop watching it.

The show, over time, began to focus less on the weekly clients of Nick’s and began to focus more on his character. It became a story of redemption. Nick was an anti-hero. He was a corporate attorney in his Father’s law firm who had been convicted of illegal drug use. He was sentenced to a zillion hours of community service in the Children’s Legal Aid office. He didn’t like being there and let everyone know it. He was rude and abrupt. He rounded up when counting his hours at the clinic. He was ethically challenged; often using knowledge he gained in the Legal Aid office, to benefit his corporate law firm. Sometimes, Nick was the scoundrel you couldn’t help but love, because you began to see that deep down he started to care about those children, and it scared him.

The show was incredibly well-acted. Nick Fallin was played by Simon Baker. Simon was a fantastic actor, and could let you see a whole range of emotion, with just the way he moved his eyes and changed his posture. (He only let his Australian accent slip once in one of the early episodes of the first season.) Dabney Coleman co-starred as his father and managing partner of the corporate law firm. Dabney Coleman was the cheesy villain in some of the dumb comedies of the ‘80’s like “9-to-5”. His performance as Fallin, Sr. was without a doubt the best of his career and he showed himself to be an incredible actor. He deserved an Emmy.

Anyway, the last episode came as its season finale. And each character reached some sort of closure. But the network never advertised it as the “last episode” as it did for so many others. So when it ended, I turned to my wife and said, “I think that was the last one. It’s too bad.”


P.S. DH posted a comment on it.
Was just doing a bit of reminiscing about the guardian, googled nick fallin, and saw your comments. Thank you for writing them, for taking the time. We had a hell of a time making that show and did it with a great amount of passion, intensity and desire to be truthful and tell hard stories. I appreciate your watching and taking note of a show we miss making.
DH
Friday, May 27, 2005 @ 12:22 am



From thinkings Weblog