Exclusive interview with J. August Richards

image courtesy of TNT

As you know, J. August Richards plays Marcus McGrath on TNT’s Raising the Bar. Proving that a kid from a difficult background can grow up to achieve success despite obstacles, Marcus is one of the strongest prosecutors, refusing to give in for any reason.

J. is also known for his roles in Conviction and, of course, Angel. Fans all over the Whedonverse remember him as Gunn, the hard-edged vampire hunter–and lawyer, for that matter.

I had the opportunity to talk to J. for a little while and ask him a few things. It proved to be a really fun interview, and he’s a really cool guy.

So take a look! And don’t forget to watch him Monday nights on Raising the Bar on TNT.

I’m a big fan of Raising the Bar, and I have a few questions about that specifically. Your character Marcus McGrath is probably best known for never backing down and never giving up. Because of this, the viewers tend to root for the underdog. How does it feel to be one of the “bad guys” in the courtroom?

Yeah, it’s funny. Sometimes people watch the show and–even my friends and family–and call me and say, “How could you do that? Why did you do that to that young boy? Why did you do that to those old men?”

And, you know, in my own mind and hopefully in the mind in some of the viewers, you know, I spend a lot of time thinking about the victim of each case, who sometimes we see and sometimes we don’t. But especially, we never see the victim come in right after the crime. And creatively and imaginatively, I spend a lot of time with whoever the victim is that week; I think about them first walking into my office after they’ve been mugged, after they’ve been beaten, after they’ve been shot, whatever the case may be. And I think about the aftereffects of violence and crime. And in that regard, when I start thinking about that, I don’t think about my character as a bad guy. I think of my character as a very good guy, and so I play it with the strength from that point of view of thinking, that I’m trying to right someone’s wrong.

And so I never see my character as being too harsh or anything, but unfortunately other people do. [Laughs] That’s the nature of life, I guess.

[Read the rest of this interview after the jump!]

The Once and Future King’s Manservant

KT is trying to keep the history nerdiness to a minimum, promise.

MERLIN:  1.01 “The Dragon’s Call”
MERLIN:  1.02 “Valiant”

I heard good things about this Arthurian adventure series when the first season aired in the UK last year, so I’m pleased that NBC has picked it up.  I’m looking forward to it because Anthony Stewart Head (of Buffy fame) plays the tough, stern King Uther, and I’m looking forward to it because I have a soft spot for Arthurian stories

I admit I was a little put off when I found that this version of Camelot features a Merlin and an Arthur who are the same age (and oh, there’s more weirdness where that comes from).  But I suppose if anyone has the right to tinker with Arthurian legends, it’s the Brits.

And anyway, that’s the thing about legends:  when you get down to it, there is no One True Version, no author, no director’s cut.  The players and the events can be rearranged, re-imagined, re-interpreted, and this one says, let’s look at Merlin and Arthur as contemporaries, in a Camelot where Uther has outlawed magic for the past 20 years.

Because the basis for all this is legend, I don’t plan to be too hard on the show with regard to getting its history right.  The probable historical basis for King Arthur was a fifth or sixth century tribal chieftain, so definitely none of the clothing or architecture or social structures fit that period.  The Arthurian stories as we usually think of them come through the lens of the High Middle Ages (complete with courtly love, chivalry, and all that), which is closer to what we see here.

Mind you, that still leaves a big handful of anachronisms that pinged me between the eyes.  I’m thinking of things like the written sign that said “Court Physician” and the letter Merlin brought from his mother (people in Jane Austen novels bring letters of introduction; medieval peasants do not).  The existence of a celebrity singer was extremely out of place – as was her musical style, which belonged no earlier than the Italian Renaissance.

And how is young Merlin so ignorant of the class structures of his own time?  In the first episode he practically picks a fight with Arthur – even if he didn’t know Arthur was the prince, he obviously was a knight.  Bad call, kiddo.  And in the second, he grouses about having to work in a way that sounds natural for a 21st century teenager, but less so for a young man from the Middle Ages.  (This one could have been fixed, for note, had the writers put the focus more specifically on not wanting to work for Arthur.)  Unless his mysteriously literate mother is a noble (in which case, why has Merlin not had weapons training?), he has some strange gaps of common sense for being a commoner.

On the other hand, only a British production would pull out “Albion” as an old name for Britain, and that’s pretty awesome.

This is getting long, so meet me after the jump and we’ll talk characters…

Eli Stone’s triumphant return (start fanfare)

ELI STONE: 2.10 “Sonoma”

Eli Stone returned with new episodes this Saturday. You wouldn’t know it based on ABC’s stellar attempts at advertising it. Oh yeah. They didn’t. Moving on…

My heart breaks for this show. I love it. Why must it go?

We dropped right in from where we left–and had a song at the start, too! At first I was mildly annoyed: How dare they leave us with a life-endangering nosebleed just to have us start back up just fine? But nope, a dream.

Anyway, I’m very curious to see what the second aneurysm will do to Eli. Will he still have his visions? Will he be more likely to die suddenly? (I’m personally calculating whether if an aneurysm can kill him at any instant, whether two will double his chances or if they remain the same. If there’s an infinite number of chances to start…)

But I’m glad we didn’t continue with a long saga or else we couldn’t have had the fun plot that we had. I adored Matt hiding from his ex in Sonoma, and how he was immediately held in contempt for his actions ten years ago (though yes, Taylor was right to ask the judge to recuse herself from the trial). And how cute were Taylor and Matt, holding hands asleep in jail. Loved it.

But what about Eli and Maggie? Bah, Maggie. Can I blame the cancellation on how annoying Maggie is? I still hate their couply-ness. I still can’t stand the thought of them together. But methinks that we’ll end up with them as a couple, since she’s envisioned them together in a vision last season and we just had the awkward sex moment.

How old is she, twelve? Boo.

Anyway, I guess if it makes Eli happy, I should be happy, too, right? Though I personally wish he’d end up with Grace, but I think that option is long gone.

Really, the meat of the episode was cleary in the reveal of the black magic work done on Eli’s father. Personally, I think they approached this reveal slightly flawed. It had its punch, and it certainly was worth mentioning in this episode, and I love the twist. But why’d they have to reveal it twice? First to Nate, then to Eli?

I think the best thing to do was to make the discussion between Nate and Chen behind closed doors. Lead it up with “I have something to tell you” or something like that and then end the scene. We’ll assume they’ve talked when they end up on Eli’s doorstep together.

Then.

THEN we have the full reveal, so both the audience and Eli are completely shocked. And we see his reaction in full effect, not as an aftereffect since we know what they’re going to say.

Anyway, it’s still a worthwhile reveal. But clearly Eli won’t die in a week. So what will happen? What will the second aneurysm do?

And why are only three episodes left of this brilliant show?

Blah on all fronts

ARMY WIVES: 3.03 “Moving Out”

So, I hate to be harsh, but did anyone else find Army Wives to be completely boring last night? I mean, nothing really happened. I mean, stuff happened, but I really wasn’t enthralled.

Ok, what did happen? Roxy raised enough money to pay back the bank and transform Betty’s back into the Hump Bar. I’m pretty sure this entire plotline would be excruciatingly boring if they didn’t put her sons in the episode. Instead of excruciatingly boring, it was just kinda boring. And kinda unbelievable. Wouldn’t she have to make an overabundance of money just to break even–then to have room to put the Hump Bar back in its place, that’s just more debt.

And then there’s Trevor. For some reason, I’m still annoyed at Trevor. He’s been really disagreeable lately, not very supportive of Roxy, and just kind-of a bother. So the fact that he got reprimanded for not clearing someone’s weapon didn’t make too much of an impact in my eyes. Speaking of, did the actual kid who shot the gun get reprimanded at all? Didn’t look like it. I think they should have both ended up in the doghouse.

Speaking of houses, it looks like Claudia Joy won’t have to move after all, now that Michael’s back (another slight improbability, considering that he just started the new job and moved). But what about the people who were about to move into her house? And how did he just naturally get his job back when there was a replacement in place? And did anyone else want to smack Emmalin upside the head when she gave lip to her mother?

And as for Michael’s replacement, I completely forgot about him. It should be interesting to see where he goes now that Michael’s back, or just waht trouble will start up. Will he and Jennifer stay? Now that’s an intriguing question.

I kinda missed what was going on with Pamela, but I did appreciate the scene where she met the person who was moved by her radio show. I wish Pamela would end up back on that show. To be honest, that part was always the intriguing part of Army Wives because it really revealed the good and the bad–the real true-to-life struggles–of being a family in the army.

And honestly, that is what made me start watching the show. It was less the drama with the characters and more about how they fairly portrayed the truth of army life without being biased on one side or the other. Honestly, in some cases is sucks a big one, but in others, it really is fulfilling and meaningful. I think this needs to be inserted back into the show. I miss it. It’s what defines this show as quality rather than just another women-focused drama.

Anyway, I guess we’re only in the third episode of the season, so we have room to grow–or return to the basics–but last night didn’t impress me much. Bummer.