Last night, FX’s The Americans (FX, Wednesdays, 10/9C) featured Noah Emmerich’s character, Stan Beeman in a way that we’ve not seen before. With his partner, Charlie Amador’s disappearance coming on the heels of the deaths of three FBI agents and a top scientist the week before, Stan had to make some hard decisions.
Emmerich spoke with a group of journalists/bloggers for just over an hour about the episode and his character’s development over the show’s first season. If you haven’t watched last night’s episode of The Americans, you might not want to follow the jump until you have.
Noah, how are you today?
Noah Emmerich: Good thanks. How are you doing?
Doing great. Doing great. I have to say, from the beginning the series has been fantastic and you can’t miss a single episode of it and your character in particular it just keeps growing and growing. What kind of research did you have to do to find out more about what these guys really did, or did at that time?
Emmerich: I spoke to a couple of ex-FBI agents, one of whom had been in counterintelligence, one of them had just been with the bureau in a more domestic situation. I read a couple of books about the foundation of the FBI and the history of the FBI, sort of the evolution of the FBI through time, and that was sort of the center foundation of my research. And then sort of reading a little bit also about the Cold War, about the shifting dynamics between the Soviet Union and the United States and the different periods and the different phases of the Cold War, and, obviously, most importantly, the dynamic in the early ‘80s, which I actually was alive for. I was a young boy but I remember very well, but I was just curious to get an adult’s point-of-view, which I had never really studied on the political dynamics of the Cold War. Just too sort of get a sense of the … of the time and our understanding of each other.
Well what surprised you or shocked you the most about some of the things you found out?
Emmerich: I guess, in hindsight, the most shocking thing of all was the sort of wild overestimation of the Soviet’s capabilities. I think the Soviet economy was weak, and our fear of the threat of the Soviet Union was exaggerated and overblown. I feel like it’s actually probably not dissimilar to what’s happening right now with North Korea in some ways. I think the unknown enemy, the unknown boogeyman, can always take on quite intimidating proportions if we don’t know the reality. And, in fact, I think at the time the Soviet Union was not capable of the sort of world domination, militarily or economically, that we were afraid of. So I think it was a Cold War that we were destined to win with such a stronger economy and military industrial complex. But at the time we didn’t know that, and I guess that, to me, is the most.
And then you think about the number of lives lost, the number of lives, the time, the man hours, the energy, the money, the resources committed to fighting a Cold War, which perhaps in hindsight was not entirely necessary and an overuse of our resources and our time.
I have been loving the show so much. I’m super psyched to be able to talk to you about this. One of the most interesting, I mean all of the relationships on that show are utterly fascinating, but the relationship with Nina has been really compelling and complex. The events of tonight, obviously, are going to complicate that relationship further. Is there anything you can tell us about how exactly it will impact that relationship?
Emmerich: Well I think we’ll have to wait and see how that manifests in their relationship, but certainly it’s a dramatic sort of turning point in Stan’s new career in counterintelligence and probably will have some significant repercussions in his relation with Nina. But how that will play out I think we’ll have to wait and see.
I understand.
Emmerich: But it certainly complicates things.
Yes. You can’t blame a girl for trying.
Emmerich: No, you can’t. I’m sorry. But I’m glad you’re curious, I’m glad you want to know, so come back and you’ll find out.
Kind of off of the question that she had asked, in tonight’s episode when Stan meets with Nina more specifically can you talk about what his motivations were kind of for pushing her away, and then in that moment was he starting to see her as the enemy again or was it more just about his single focus on finding his partner?
Emmerich: I think it’s sort of a combination of those two. I think Stan feels certain that the Soviets are behind the missing partner, that somehow they’re involved, they’re connected, and Nina is an employee of the residenteur. Nina is a Russian spy, so I think Stan rightly assumes that she would be privy to some of the events that are taking place, would have information about what operations they’re executing. And when it comes so close to home and his partner is missing I think he assumes that she must have some information, or at least access to some information that would help him find his partner.
And in that moment, although I think he has obviously sincere feelings for her, she is, and although he’s been able to turn her and have her help him on the FBI side, she is, it’s easy to forget because of this charming, beautiful, young woman, but she’s a Russian spy living in America working on behalf of the KGB. So his sort of dogged determination and the tonal shift that happens when he goes to see her after Amador is missing is about the reality of the fact that whatever his feelings for her are personally they are outweighed dramatically by the fact that his partner and fellow American is in dire jeopardy, and he’ll do anything he can at that point to ensure the safe recovery of Amador.
As a follow-up, we find out more about Amador during the episode that he’s kind of a jerk in a way and he hasn’t necessarily treated people, especially women, particularly well, so I was a little surprised that Stan never considered that maybe that had something to do with his disappearance. Is that something that maybe he will come to or at some point think about, or will he kind of just stick with that it was the KGB and that that was the motivation and who kind of—who took him and killed him.
Emmerich: Yes, I don’t think–I mean I think Stan recognizes that Amador is a womanizer to some degree. I don’t think he has any evidence that he treated women badly per se, that he was abusive or in any way antagonistic towards the women in his life that it would be enough to instigate some sort of retaliation, some sort of physical, violent retaliation from an ex-lover or partner. So I don’t think that’s in the realm of Stan’s thinking about what could have happened to Amador. I don’t think his relationship to women is foremost in Stan’s mind in terms of something this dire and this critical and this dangerous. It seems more likely and probable that counterintelligence is a quite dangerous field, lots of shadows, lots of dangers unknown and known, I think in all likelihood, and Stan has quite a bit of certainty, that it must be connected to his work with the Bureau and not his personal life.
Clearly, loyalty is number one with Stan Beeman and it drives most of his dramatic themes in this episode, yet he’s being disloyal to his wife. So how do you think he justifies that conflict?
Emmerich: Good question. I think the question of loyalty it’s quite an onion in this world. I think Stan is a ferociously loyal human being, but there’s a conflict sometimes in life between loyalty and emotional need and survival, the things that we need to survive in life. I think Stan is an incredibly isolated and lonely character, mostly due to the nature of his work, both in his near history spending so many years away from his family, living in deep undercover world away from himself and away from his life as he knows it, his real life, and then he finally has a moment. So I think the three years he was undercover clearly created a distance and a space between himself and those closest to him whom he was out of contact with and out of touch with and unable to share his true self with.
I think in that isolation and in that loneliness it’s hard to survive, it’s hard to be an island; he comes home from the undercover world and he’s trying to reintegrate into his family and into his life, and he gets thrust into this world of counterintelligence, which is sort of a repeat in a weird way. Although he’s not undercover anymore, he’s living in a world with many people who are undercover. He’s unable to share many of the details of his daily life with his wife; a lot of it is because of national security, a lot of it is because of, I think, fear of protecting her or keeping her safe and insulated from the dangerous world that he inhabits when he goes to work in the morning. But I think one of the casualties of that isolation, both for protective and security purposes, is that he ends up alone again.
I think in his relationship with Nina he’s found sort of a counterpoint to himself, someone else who’s isolated and alone, she’s removed from her family, she’s in a foreign country, she’s living in a world of shadows where you don’t know who to trust, and there’s a simpatico resonance between the two of them in that world, there’s a recognition of each other, I think, in their isolated, lonely positions in the universe. I think that the human need for connection, the human need for reflection, for being seen and understood, is quite powerful, and although superficially it’s a conflict with the loyalty of his fidelity to his wife, I think the need that he has for connection and reflection and understanding trumps, somehow in his soul in that moment, the notion that it’s a betrayal. I don’t think Stan thinks of it consciously, analytically as a betrayal, it’s just it’s a human need that emerges and to which he surrenders to some degree.
But it doesn’t bleed into the realm of loyalty in terms of nationalism, in terms of fighting the fight for which he’s dedicating his life to, which is the protection of the people and the philosophy of the United States and the freedoms that come with that. I don’t think he would clearly ever betray something that he thought would affect his ideology or his philosophy or his patriotism. But I think, as happens in life, we’re complicated creatures and we’re not white and black, as Nina tells him; there’s a lot of gray in our lives. I think his surrender to desire and need for human connection gets muddled in his own great perception of self. But it is clearly something that troubles him and disturbs him and I think he has very complicated feelings about, and it’s a difficult path he’s on.
I wondered how the onion, as you mentioned it, fed into your decision to accept this role, and I wondered if you could describe that and maybe share an anecdote about how you came to take this role.
Emmerich: Well, briefly, I’ve never done a television series before. I sort of feel like there’s a lot of interesting work happening in television, a lot of great writing and material being developed, in some ways more risky and edgy and interesting than what’s happening in the cinema. So I was open to the notion of doing a series; it seems like where the good work is happening. But I sort of had an idea in my head that I didn’t want to be a guy who carried a badge or a gun; I’ve done too much of that, and I felt like maybe more interesting television is happening where it’s character driven.
So when I got this script originally I sort of dismissed it, I thought, “Oh, a guy with a badge and a gun. I don’t want to do that.” And it was actually my friend, Gavin O’Connor, the Director who directed the pilot, who I’ve worked with a bunch of films, called me and said, “I think you should read this. Did you read it?”
I said, “Yes, you know the gun, the thing, the bad cop, and FBI.”
He said, “You didn’t read it carefully.” He said, “You should read it again and talk to me about it.”
So I read it again, and we had a conversation, and I really realized that the show is actually not about guns and badges at all, it’s really about characters, it’s about relationships, it’s about identity and our understanding of each other and ourselves and how we relate, and all those delicious, interesting layers of the onion in life that we have. And then I had a lunch with Joe Weisberg, who is the Creator/Executive Producer, and I asked him what the show was about for him, what Stan was about for him and how he saw Stan developing. It became readily apparent quite quickly that this really is, the ambition and the interest of the show is about people, it’s about relationships; it’s about character, which is always, I think, the most interesting territory to be exploring as an actor.
And I thankfully took the leap. It’s an interesting leap you take in television, because you only read one script. You don’t know who you’re going to be or what the story’s really going to be; you only know what the ambition and the desire and the interest lies, but you take a leap of faith. I thought the people involved–Gavin’s one of my great friends and an incredible director and Joe Weisberg is clearly like incredibly intelligent, interesting writer and person and I think the cast is phenomenal, Keri Russell and Matthew Rhys are both extraordinary actors–and I thought well this is going to be about human beings, and if it’s about human beings and you have it sort of laid in this incredibly wonderful world of espionage and spies and duplicity and lies, and it just creates a great environment for which you can explore the characters present. So I took the leap, and I’m ever so grateful that I did, because it has been everything I sort of hoped and more than it would be. So that’s the story of how I came to the show.
My first question is we see how sex is merely a part of the job for the Jennings or … navigate that, but Stan’s affair with Nina kind of feels like he’s crossed a line he didn’t expect to or didn’t want to cross. Does he view sex as a part of his tactics or is he really getting attached to Nina?
Emmerich: I think yes. I think it’s hard to parse exactly what means what, but I think it’s a complicated, messy ball. I think there are clearly real feelings between the two of them and there are clearly lots of other levels of relation that are going on between the two of them. It’s a very complex, messy, unclear world within which in the end we’re all just people, no matter what our job is, no matter what we’re doing. So the authentic human emotionality that is present with us that we carry into our lives, despite the task or whatever we’re supposed to be, whatever self we’re supposed to be in that moment, there’s our true self and there’s our prescribed self, and betwixt and between the two there’s a lot of gray.
So I do think that clearly sex is a weapon in the world of espionage. Sex is a soft weapon that is used by everyone to different degrees for different tasks, and I think the complications between the actually authentic human self and the actions that we take can have impact on each other, can have affect, even if they’re not supposed to. So I think it gets very confusing and complicated for everybody. I think using ourselves in that way is rigorous and demanding on our hold of ourselves, of our authentic selves, and I think for Stan he is struggling with that.
We haven’t seen much with you and Daniel interacting, but will we see that dynamic explored, or maybe the lack of relationship explored that he doesn’t have with his son?
Emmerich: Yes, I hope so, I hope so. It’s certainly an interesting area to go to. Certainly I think Stan’s career has been very hard on his relationship, both with his wife and with his son, maybe more poignantly with his son, who’s at a developmentally fragile age. I think that the distance between them is something that provides lots of interesting material to explore, and hopefully we’ll have a chance to do that.
I was watching Super 8 the other night and then the episode of The Americans, and you do an awesome job in that law enforcement, military type role. I was wondering if you were ever interested in being an agent or a spy when you were a kid.
Emmerich: Thank you, first of all. I think there was maybe some brief moment where I thought being in the FBI would be cool. I was probably very young; it wasn’t a long or protracted fantasy. But I can’t say it was a real significant part of my adolescent fantasy.
And somehow I’ve ended up playing quite a few of these military law enforcement, I think partially driven by the material that we’re creating them in our culture. For actors there’s a lot of cop shows, a lot of military stuff, there’s a lot of– We’re interested in that world; it’s dramatic and exciting and makes for good pictures. But I never imagined I would do it so often. As I said earlier to an earlier question, when I first read this pilot I discounted in immediately just because I didn’t want to carry a gun anymore. Although, like I said, again, this show isn’t really about guns in the end, but it does create a great dramatic context in which to tell human stories.
But no, it wasn’t really a very strong part of my fantasy as a child to be an agent or a spy. Maybe more so a western; I think I had a gun belt when I was nine or ten, one of those western six shooters. That was my bigger fantasy with a gun was to be Billy Jack, and that’s about the extent of it. Yes.
Yes. And I was also looking at some of the lists that people make on IMBD, and they had included you in the list of the greatest supporting actors of all time, as well as a list of often overlooked actors. What has it meant to you to be in such a prominent supporting role not only in this show, but in so many other great projects over the years?
Emmerich: Oh I’m very flattered to hear that. That’s very nice. I don’t know who makes those lists, but if you can get me their number I’ll send them some flowers.
I’ve been very fortunate. I’m very grateful for a lot of the roles and the people I’ve had the chance to work with. There are a lot of really talented, incredible, people working in this business, and I’ve been blessed to work with a good number of them, and each time I learn more and I have a wonderful time, and I’m glad people are appreciating it. One thing that’s wonderful about this job, it’s unprecedented for me, is the time frame; there’s much more time, you get to do so much more material, there’s so many scripts and so many episodes, and you have sort of a sustained relationship with an audience, which doesn’t happen in film, it’s a one shot deal. So it creates room, I think, for a more intimate relationship between the audience and the character. It’s wonderful. It feels great to be seen and appreciated. It’s really it’s been fantastic, and I’m very grateful.
Before I ask my question I wanted to thank you for being so nice as to pose for a picture when I met you with my sister in Washington Square last summer.
Emmerich: Oh, my gosh. Really? Wow. Sure.
My first question is Stan’s relationship with Philip; it grows more genuine by the day. How do you think this changes his suspicions of the Jennings?
Emmerich: I think there’s a real affection and relationship evolving between Stan and Philip. I think they like each other. How it impacts Stan’s suspicions I think I won’t touch that. I think it’s better to let the audience try and figure that out. I hate to deflate that balloon. But I think, again, life is gray, so we have people in our lives that we like, maybe even love, that maybe we don’t necessarily trust entirely, maybe we do trust entirely. That changes over time with different experiences and different events how well we really know each other and how much we believe that we know each other. But I do think there’s an authentic bond and amicability between the two of them that hopefully we’ll get to explore more as the season and the series progresses. And how it impacts Stan’s suspicions is for you to answer more than me.
Well, like was said earlier, can’t hurt to try.
Emmerich: No.
It’s often been asked if Philip valued his country, the USSR, over his family. If the roles were reversed do you think Stan would value his country over his family or vice versa?
Emmerich: Well that’s a really good question. It sort of gets to the crux of one of the dynamics that’s so interesting, I think, in the series is where our values lie and what the priorities are and what takes precedent over. I think in a way it’s a Sophie’s Choice question: what’s more important, which is first, are you a father first, are you an American first, are you a husband first. I don’t know if you can actually hierarchal prioritize that sensibility for Stan.
I think he’s a man who’s clearly given his life and a huge chunk of himself to what he considers a noble endeavor, which is protecting the security and safety of the United States. I think how that impedes upon his ability to be a good husband or father and how those two come into conflict is an ever sort of revealing, ever unfolding dilemma that he’s desperately trying to navigate. I think a hard answer as to which comes first or second is impossible to arrive at, which child do you give up and which child do you keep, how do you answer that question. But they’re both of fundamental, primary importance to him, and I think he’s trying to find his way through that conflict as we watch.
You graduated from Yale University where you majored in history. How important is it to present a show that keeps with the majority of authenticity, but yet is still entertaining for viewers?
You graduated from Yale University where you majored in history, and seeing the historical nature of this show how important is it to you to keep that authenticity with the characters you portray?
Emmerich: Right. Well I think I’m very interested in history in as much as it helps guide us towards the future. History is, I think, an often-misunderstood field. It’s really an all-encompassing field, it can mean so many things, but it’s our inherited knowledge of the past, it’s an opportunity to have a discussion. Nothing changes over time, really; human beings are sort of persistently themselves from the beginning of Babylonia to now. It’s the context that changes and the specifics that change, but really there’s universality to the dilemmas that human beings face in trying to live with each other and to make a productive, interesting world together.
So I think the authenticity is important, because it’s the actual navigation points that have brought us to where we are today, and to blur that or obfuscate that or distort that would be unnecessarily distracting and diminishing of the lesson that we’re examining or the journey that we’ve taken together. So I think authenticity is always a plus and always adds legitimacy to our understanding of ourselves, and it’s a great opportunity to have a conversation without the pressure and the sort of adrenaline filled … or aggressiveness that comes with a conversation about current events, about things that are too immediately where our hair is up too strong to have a reasoned, peaceful conversation about, I don’t know, red state, blue state, where America is an incredibly divided place right now, sort of polarized and contentious and partisan. But as you talk about the past people calm down, they settle down, and you could have maybe a more reasoned, calmer exploration of differing opinions, of different approaches to society, family, culture, politics. So the more authentic the environment the more fertile the conversation will probably be in lending itself to understanding of ourselves today.
I’m really excited to talk to you today. A couple of my questions were already asked, so I’ll go for one that may be a little you might have to pass the question. But I’m very curious about your character’s background with his undercover work with the white supremacists and how that affected him. We’ve had a lot of flashbacks throughout the series so far. Can you let us know if we’ll get a flashback for your undercover work?
Emmerich: I certainly hope that we will. I’m certain that we will, actually. The question is when. But clearly Stan’s background and the three years he spent with the white supremacists had a huge impact on his life and his character, and it’s something that we’re going to need to find more out about. I feel keep watching the show and give us time to get to that.
Yes. Awesome. And as a follow-up, one of the fun parts about the show is the crazy wigs and the undercover stuff, and with your character you don’t really get to do that. And so–
Emmerich: I know. It’s very frustrating.
Yes.
Emmerich: I want to wear a wig.
Maybe in the flashback episode you can do that.
Emmerich: Yes, well certainly. I mean certainly, yes, there’s lots of room for that to come into play.
Yes, and maybe like fake tattoos or some crazy outfits.
Emmerich: Who said they’re fake?
You can reveal the tattoos, you can reveal your tattoos. So since your role is a little bit different, you’re not playing the Russian spy, what’s your favorite part of being Stan Beeman so far? If that’s too broad of a question maybe you could point out one aspect that you’re really enjoying that you haven’t had a chance to speak about yet.
Emmerich: Well, I love the diversity of Stan. I love that his relationship is so different. Stan is really sort of an isolated character in a way; it’s quite painful and lonely somehow. He’s not fully himself or honest with anybody that he relates to on the show. His wife, you clearly have quite a distance between them. Nina and he are from opposite teams, although they’re meeting in the middle, but clearly he’s not fully open or forthcoming with her. His partner, I think he had a huge connection with, but it’s also sort of a new relationship and not entirely trusting and cut from very different cloth, the two men. So there’s something interesting for Stan, for me as an actor, about playing these different scenes and just different dynamics, so many different, completely unrelated relationships.
And it never gets dull; every day I have a different, it’s almost like three or four different plot lines going at the same time, which creates a lot of dynamic fun and interesting colors, I think, for Stan to have in scenes with the other characters. Although it is a little bit lonely.
Although you do get to have kind of your foot in every story line, because you are the neighbor to the spies at the same time as working.
Emmerich: Right.
So, you do kind of—
Emmerich: Exactly. So there’s a lot of diversity. There’s like, you know—exactly. There’s the home life, there’s the work life, there’s a betwixt and between, there’s the secretive rendezvous in the safe house. There’s a lot of different tones to Stan’s work in the show, so that’s fun and exciting.
I was wondering in this episode that’s coming out tonight, “Safe House”, can you tell us a little bit about what you think was going through Stan’s mind when he shot the guy?
Emmerich: So this for after the airing, obviously, right. I mean this isn’t—
Yes. Right.
Emmerich: Well I think Stan gets himself into a corner to some degree. He contacts the residenteur and he says, “I know you have Amador, and if you don’t give us Amador we’re going to kill your man that we have.” And then Amador shows up dead, and I feel, I think Stan feels, that if he doesn’t follow through with his threat then the U.S. will lose all authenticity or reliability in terms of their threat. Once Amador is killed I think Stan feels if Vlad is in fact a member of the KGB, if Vlad is in fact a covert warrior in this war, then he has to go, I think, which is why Stan comes back. And once Vlad admits that he is fact a KGB officer, in fact he is a spy who’s here in America trying to bring down our country, he’s fair game for the retaliation for Amador’s death.
I don’t think it’s something Stan—I don’t think it’s an emotional, rash decision. I think it’s a calculated chess move that he feels must be made, otherwise there’s no– It’s a Cold War, and he’s made it clear, he’s drawn a line that unless Amador is returned in health to his job there will repercussions, and if you don’t follow through with that threat then you lose all credibility in the future. So I think in some way I think that’s in fact what drives Stan to do that.
So you don’t think there was a little bit of pleasure and revenge for his friend?
Emmerich: I don’t think there’s any pleasure in it at all. I think it is revenge. I don’t think it’s personal, though, I think it’s political.
You always seem to do such interesting roles, this one included. I’ve never seen you do like a role where I’m not zoned into your performance. So when, and you kind of answered this a little bit, but when you’re looking at parts do you wait for the perfect role or is it luck or instinct?
Emmerich: It’s, I think, a little bit of all of those. The luck is that the right role comes along, the patience is waiting for that role to come along, and the instinct is knowing the different between a good role and a bad role. For me I have been, I think in some ways as I look back, I have been quite patient and careful to do jobs that I feel will hold my interest, as well as the audience’s interest.
In the very beginning as an actor you take any job you can possibly get, anybody willing to put you in anything you’re grateful to. And then I had that experience quite young. One of my first film pieces was a thing I did on film, and I didn’t really think it was a great piece of material; I didn’t think it was a great character, but I was excited to have a job. And I did the job, and then I realized it wasn’t exciting for me at all, in fact I was humiliated. I had fantasies of stealing the negative and destroying it so no one would see it. I realized this is not just about the obstacles of a career, but when you do a job you’re putting yourself out there in the universe in a certain way and you’re saying this is my work and people are going to see it. And if you’re not proud of it and you don’t feel it’s interesting or worthwhile then for me it was quite a painful experience to have work be seen that I wasn’t proud of, and I promised myself in that moment that I would never do that again.
And you never know how things going to come out; some things come out great, some things come out terrible, but the ambition and the desire and the endeavor has to be at least worthy for what I think my instinct and my interests lie. It has to be in the right place in its ambition, and whether that’s fulfilled or not is up to fate, but at least I’m going to start in a place where I feel it’s worthwhile.
So sometimes that does mean sitting on the bench for a while waiting for the right job to come along, and sometimes that can be quite painful, because I love working. But it’s hard, it’s hard, it’s very competitive and material it’s mixed and matched, and it’s not always easy to find a role that I think is interesting both for me and a project that’s interesting for the audience.
So I appreciate your—hello?
Yes, yes, I’m here.
Emmerich: Oh, I heard some beeps. I appreciate your saying that. And it is, like I say, I think it’s a combination of discernment, patience, instinct, and luck.
I was going to ask about like the moment when Stan realizes—what is the moment when Stan realizes okay I have to follow through on this threat? I mean did Stan consider the repercussions, like okay, yes, we need to appear strong, but maybe I’m the one who’s going to be sending this Cold War into hot territory?
Emmerich: I don’t think he would have apprehension about escalating the Cold War to a more dangerous place in retaliation for Amador’s death. I think Vlad is clearly not a major player; although he’s a KGB spy working to bring down America, he’s not high level enough that it would move the DEFCON threat level anywhere. I think he sees it as a justifiable and promised retaliation for the murder on American soil of a federal agent. So I don’t think he has a—I think it would be more dangerous, from Stan’s point-of-view, to do nothing, to not retaliate, to therefore give the KGB a green light, in saying you can indiscriminately execute American citizens on American soil would be a much more dangerous thing to do than– In other words, nothing is more dangerous at that point than something, and I think he feels that the retaliation, the eye for an eye, is probably safer, which is why he would go forward with that. It’s actually to ensure the safety of domestic safety for federal agents and for citizens, I think.
Things are getting quite out of control, the KGB seems to be getting broader and broader in the license which they take with which they can threaten and in fact harm U.S. citizens, beginning with the scientists and coming all the way now to actual federal agent. I think he feels it’s critical that something be done to halt that acceleration, and I think the murder of Vlad is a step in that direction.
That actually makes a lot of sense when you put it that way. So what exactly will you miss most about working with Max Hernandez? Anything at all?
Emmerich: Oh, God, yes. Everything. Yes, it’s really sad. Max is a great person and a great presence on set and a wonderful actor and fun to be with and incredibly enthusiastic fellow. A great guy. And he was my new partner. I touched upon Stan’s sort of isolation in this world, and the one tether that he had, at least the beginnings of one, was his partnership with Amador. Now they were clearly different types of people and I don’t know if they were ever going to be best friends, but it was a partner and it was someone he went to work with every day and someone he respected on the job for sure. I’m sorry; I got off in the character world.
In the real world Max I’m just going to miss Max. Max is a great guy and it was really fun working with him, and I’m sad that he’s gone. But I’ll see him again on something else. We actually worked together on the Pride and Glory, one of the films that Gavin O’Connor, who directed the pilot, directed. Max was in that film. It was a cop drama with Edward Norton, Colin Farrell, and John Voigt and myself, and Max was in that. So we had met then, and I can only hope and assume that we’ll meet again.
I want to say that, well, one of the really wonderful things about your performance as Stan is that you’re constantly contrasting performances with Matthew and Keri as well, who kind of perform with their emotions on their sleeve. It’s easier to, I think, read them, but you play such a very ambiguous and very pensive kind of demeanor. Was that the intention, the design of the character, to have so much maybe, or kind of thought and reflection, or is that something that you just kind of came up on your own as far as what you brought to the character?
Emmerich: Interesting question. Yes, we actually talked in great detail to the need for Stan to have inherent ambiguity to him. From the pilot, from the first episode, we don’t know is Stan there on purpose, is it coincidence, does he know, does he not know, is he suspicious, how suspicious is he, is he still suspicious, has it dissipated. So to hold the much ambiguity in a character, to hold and not really know where he stands in relation to those characters around him, is he suspicious, is he friendly, you know all those things, you have to have, I think, a certain hidden ness in your nature, otherwise it would be too clear, we would know what he was thinking, we would know how he felt. And we talked, both Joe Weisberg and Gavin O’Connor and myself, talked at great length about having to ride that line where some people might think he knows one thing, some people might think he knows another thing, but it had to be on that line of ambiguity.
So I appreciate your noticing that and reflecting that back. But that is certainly something that we collectively decided was necessary for the character, and is quite interesting for me as an actor to explore that world, that space, but it is something that we aim to do.
Okay. Cool. And then you said that this is kind of your first kind of recurring role on television. I know you’ve done a lot of guest spots. But the show was renewed for its second season early on. Was there like kind of a freeing moment knowing that okay, we now know that we have at least two seasons to kind of tell the story of these characters? Was there kind of, I don’t know, was there a freeing moment on the set, did it feel—was there a change once the renewal was announced?
Emmerich: Yes, I think so. I think knowing you have that much room in front of you it brings a lot of air into the picture. It’s a very comfortable, incredibly exciting reality that, okay, we’re going to be able to do this for at least another 12 episodes, 13 episodes, and we have time, we have space, we have room.
Television is such a precarious business. Like I said, it’s my first time doing a series, but it was quite dramatic that every week they’re saying are we coming back, did people watch, are they not watching, do they like it or not like it. And I sort of stayed out of it to some degree, because it’s quite intrusive and I think detrimental to the freedom and the joy and the process that you need to have when you’re in production.
But it’s certainly in the ether, but fortunately we were saved I think from that drama quite, as you mentioned, early. We knew pretty quickly that we were going to come back, and then it allowed us to completely, at least me, to completely divorce myself from the reaction or the ratings or the numbers or the demographics, and just we’re here, and we’re going to be here for long enough to do some interesting, hopefully, interesting work, and we’re going to have time to explore these characters, and the rest is beyond our control, so how people respond or whether they watch or the numbers go up or down. It allows you to sort of pull back your perspective, a little bit more bird’s eye view, and say we have time and we’ll see, and either the audience will find us or they won’t and they’ll appreciate us or they won’t, but we’re going to be able to do this for a couple of years, and that’s a wonderful feeling.
Great. And then one last quick one, what’s your favorite spy tech that’s been shown on the show?
Emmerich: My favorite spy tech shown on the show. Well, it’s a good question. What struck me sort of the most, what startled me was the satellite radio transmission of Morse code to communicate. We’ve come such a long way in so little time. To think that we’ve gone from everybody having essentially a super computer in their pocket to Philip having to go dig out a transmittal box and set up an antenna and point it at the right place in the sky to get a message across the world I thought that was just sort of somehow very resonant for me in terms of encapsulating the differential in technology between now and then.
And it actually makes, I think, it easier for tension-filled storytelling, because cell phones kind of deflate a lot; just call them and tell them, tell them to stop. You can get a hold of anybody anywhere in the world sort of within seconds now, and that’s not always the best thing for storytelling. So that moment, to me, sort of encapsulated that, and I found sort of titillating.
I’m new to the show. I tuned in when my editor asked me to cover it, and I really had no trouble engaging and being caught up on the story. What would you say to viewers who are maybe curious but are concerned that having missed the first end of the season it might be something that they can’t catch on easily? Or why is this the best show we should be watching?
Emmerich: Well I would say you can certainly, it’s not a long season, so catching up doesn’t take that much time. I think it is worth watching from the beginning, but it’s quite readily available on many different platforms. I’m not totally aware of all of them, but I know Hulu, I know FX On Demand, I know a lot of the cable carriers have it On Demand. And again, it’s only a 13-hour season, so I think it is worth following chronologically. I think if you don’t you could still jump in and hopefully you find the characters compelling and interesting. It’s not like it’s so convoluted and conflated that you won’t be able to figure out what’s going on; there is a lot of episodic quality to each episode, although there is a through line for sure that goes through, and it would be better to experience it chronologically.
And why it’s the best show worth watching, to me it’s the most interesting show worth watching because I’m working on it. But as for someone else’s opinion, I would only hope that they would find it interesting and compelling and worth their time. It seems like a good number of people do feel that way, so maybe there’s something there. I hope so.
Okay. Just a quick follow-up, an earlier caller asked you if Stan had crossed a line in his relationship with Nina. I think he crossed another line early in the episode. He’s very clear that he will not participate in extra judicial killing, and by the end he hasn’t just participated, he’s pulled the trigger. Is that a personal or professional line that he’s crossed there and are we going to see him now that his character is crossing a lot of lines and changing?
Emmerich: He definitely crosses the line that he tries to draw for himself earlier in the episode, and, as you mention, by the end of the episode there’s been some boundary breaking. I think the repercussions of that will come to play in his character as we go on, and I think we’re going to have to see what happens.
Most of my questions were answered, but one of the joys of these things is that sometimes other people’s questions get answers that spawn another question. You mentioned earlier that it wouldn’t be possible for Stan to place a hierarchal order to his love of country versus his love of his family, and also that Stan’s time in undercover work created a space between him and those he loves. Now I’m thinking that while his family might see that space as a barrier it’s a possibility, and I’d like you to speak to that, that Stan might actually see that space in some ways as a buffer between him and his family in protecting them from the harsh realities of his work and also as a means to enhance his ability to do his job well.
Emmerich: Yes, I do think that the buffer is required for the safety and security of his family. Stan deals with some very dangerous characters, whether it’s on the domestic front with the white supremacists or on the international front with the KGB, but certainly Stan is, it’s like in the witness protection program, Stan wouldn’t want his family to be able to be exploited or used in any way to compromise his position or to get to him in any way. So the further the distance between he and his family the safer they are, as far as the nefarious characters that Stan is dealing with on a daily basis. And I also think that, as you sort of pointed out, his sense of vulnerability and security for his own safety if you cast yourself in the role of the father or the husband clearly, hopefully, you want to stay out of trouble so you can be there for your wife and son and children, and somehow I think that second hesitation is a very dangerous thing to have in the undercover world.
So there is a space needed, a buffer needed for him to feel both confident in relation from his dangerous world and their security and his own sense of self jeopardy and freedom to do what needs to be done at great risk to life and limb for himself without the added pressure of feeling the impact that that would have on those who love him and whom he loves.
Great. Thanks so much. Keep up the great work.
Emmerich: Thank you.
Photos by Craig Blankenhorn/Courtesy of FX