Walter Koenig in InAlienable
photo by Michele K. Short
Saturday, December 08, 2007
WALTER KOENIG INTERVIEW
by William S. Kowinski
Introduction
The original Star Trek crew has remained an enduring presence in Trekdom not only for their work on television and their feature film series, but for what they’ve done and who they have been, after and beyond those stories on the screen.
Fan enthusiasm provided the opportunity, but it was primarily these actors—and other participants in creating Trek stories—who defined the positive shape of the Trek phenomenon for the past several decades. It was especially true in the 10 years when there was no new Star Trek on any screen, and so it shouldn’t be too surprising that in this latest hiatus, they’re doing so again.
They helped define Trekdom—and their important place in it-- through sensitive and persistent interaction with fans, through their commitment to the Trek vision and its relevance to the ongoing world, and by their subsequent work and how they conduct themselves. Having once played explorers beyond the final frontier, they have each explored new worlds in their lives and careers—and continue to do so. They’ve each honored the Star Trek vision in individual and admirable ways.
This is particularly true of the “supporting players,” who performed the necessary but tedious functions that kept the ship—and the story—moving forward, while maintaining the ability and focus to turn a line, a gesture, even a reaction into one of those enduring Star Trek “moments” that DeForest Kelley said were the essence of Trek’s appeal. It may be true, as Walter Koenig says in the following interview, that there are a thousand actors who could bring each of those characters to life, but how many could have nurtured the phenomenon of Star Trek, or kept inspiring and renewing the faith of fans in new ways?
[please continue reading after photos...]
by William S. Kowinski
Introduction
The original Star Trek crew has remained an enduring presence in Trekdom not only for their work on television and their feature film series, but for what they’ve done and who they have been, after and beyond those stories on the screen.
Fan enthusiasm provided the opportunity, but it was primarily these actors—and other participants in creating Trek stories—who defined the positive shape of the Trek phenomenon for the past several decades. It was especially true in the 10 years when there was no new Star Trek on any screen, and so it shouldn’t be too surprising that in this latest hiatus, they’re doing so again.
They helped define Trekdom—and their important place in it-- through sensitive and persistent interaction with fans, through their commitment to the Trek vision and its relevance to the ongoing world, and by their subsequent work and how they conduct themselves. Having once played explorers beyond the final frontier, they have each explored new worlds in their lives and careers—and continue to do so. They’ve each honored the Star Trek vision in individual and admirable ways.
This is particularly true of the “supporting players,” who performed the necessary but tedious functions that kept the ship—and the story—moving forward, while maintaining the ability and focus to turn a line, a gesture, even a reaction into one of those enduring Star Trek “moments” that DeForest Kelley said were the essence of Trek’s appeal. It may be true, as Walter Koenig says in the following interview, that there are a thousand actors who could bring each of those characters to life, but how many could have nurtured the phenomenon of Star Trek, or kept inspiring and renewing the faith of fans in new ways?
[please continue reading after photos...]
Walter Koenig as Ensign Chekov was the last of the original crew to be brought aboard, and has remained in some ways the least known. He had a second science fiction life as a recurring character (Bester) on the TV series Babylon 5, and added writing to his acting career. Recently he has been one of the Star Trek veterans to embrace and transform the so-called “fan film” phenomenon, which in the case of such productions as the Star Trek: New Voyages films and the upcoming Star Trek: Of Gods and Men, should rightly be called independent films (as Sky Conway, the producer of the latter, suggests.)
December is shaping up to be a big month for Walter Koenig. He has a major part in Star Trek: Of Gods and Men, playing Chekov but with a twist. The first of its three parts will be released on the Internet on Dec. 22, and the date when the second part will be available will be announced then. Everyone is still trying to keep the story as spoiler-fresh as possible, so we didn’t talk about it much, but it does seem to involve some kind of alternate reality in which Chekov is a “freedom fighter” or perhaps a terrorist. (Otherwise, as I’ve written before, what I know about the story bears quite a bit of resemblance to the rumored plot of Star Trek XI. I’m assuming the rumor is wrong, but if it’s not…fascinating…) When the trailers were shown at the 40th anniversary celebration last year in Seattle, a lot of buzz was about Tim Russ’ direction and Walter Koenig’s performance.
Then on Christmas day, James Cowley, executive of New Voyages, promises a new version of last year’s “To Serve All My Days” with new effects, music and re-edited scenes, including a new ending. The idea is to make it look and feel more like a Star Trek episode from the mythical fourth season, in 1969. It will be available on the web through Dragonfly on December 25. Chekov is the central figure of this drama in which Koenig stars. As he says here, “To Serve All My Days” was conceived as a kind of sequel to the second season TOS episode, “The Deadly Years,” in which Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty are infected with a disease that causes them to age rapidly. Chekov was somewhere else and wasn’t affected, and McCoy uses him to find a cure. This time, it is Chekov who finds himself aging rapidly.
December is shaping up to be a big month for Walter Koenig. He has a major part in Star Trek: Of Gods and Men, playing Chekov but with a twist. The first of its three parts will be released on the Internet on Dec. 22, and the date when the second part will be available will be announced then. Everyone is still trying to keep the story as spoiler-fresh as possible, so we didn’t talk about it much, but it does seem to involve some kind of alternate reality in which Chekov is a “freedom fighter” or perhaps a terrorist. (Otherwise, as I’ve written before, what I know about the story bears quite a bit of resemblance to the rumored plot of Star Trek XI. I’m assuming the rumor is wrong, but if it’s not…fascinating…) When the trailers were shown at the 40th anniversary celebration last year in Seattle, a lot of buzz was about Tim Russ’ direction and Walter Koenig’s performance.
Then on Christmas day, James Cowley, executive of New Voyages, promises a new version of last year’s “To Serve All My Days” with new effects, music and re-edited scenes, including a new ending. The idea is to make it look and feel more like a Star Trek episode from the mythical fourth season, in 1969. It will be available on the web through Dragonfly on December 25. Chekov is the central figure of this drama in which Koenig stars. As he says here, “To Serve All My Days” was conceived as a kind of sequel to the second season TOS episode, “The Deadly Years,” in which Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty are infected with a disease that causes them to age rapidly. Chekov was somewhere else and wasn’t affected, and McCoy uses him to find a cure. This time, it is Chekov who finds himself aging rapidly.
But before either of those comes InAlienable. Koenig wrote this non-Trek science fiction drama, and is its Executive Producer as well as a principal actor in it. On December 15 it will become available as an Internet pay-per-view on the Renegade website, at the low admission price net users are fond of ($2.99.) This experiment is, as Koenig has quipped, where no movie has gone before.
Yet it may well be where a lot more storytellers will go. When I talked last month with Sky Conway, producer of InAlienable as well as of Of Gods and Men, he was excited by the news that Intel had developed a chip that would enable high definition television to be transmitted across the Internet. He made it sound like that pretty much sealed the deal: the Internet was going to be the future, and very soon.
For the present this is one of the opportunities that new technologies provide for more of a direct connection between creators and audience. Everything from cheaper cameras and digital effects mean that making a movie no longer requires kowtowing to the whims of big studios, and now the Internet opens the way to more direct marketing and distribution, so those movies don’t need to follow dubious formulas for mass market acceptance. In the Trek world as elsewhere, the pioneers may have been younger enthusiasts, but these veterans have jumped in to help take it all to the next level.
Yet it may well be where a lot more storytellers will go. When I talked last month with Sky Conway, producer of InAlienable as well as of Of Gods and Men, he was excited by the news that Intel had developed a chip that would enable high definition television to be transmitted across the Internet. He made it sound like that pretty much sealed the deal: the Internet was going to be the future, and very soon.
For the present this is one of the opportunities that new technologies provide for more of a direct connection between creators and audience. Everything from cheaper cameras and digital effects mean that making a movie no longer requires kowtowing to the whims of big studios, and now the Internet opens the way to more direct marketing and distribution, so those movies don’t need to follow dubious formulas for mass market acceptance. In the Trek world as elsewhere, the pioneers may have been younger enthusiasts, but these veterans have jumped in to help take it all to the next level.
I’d met Walter Koenig at a couple of conventions, but this interview was conducted by phone. We talked about InAlienable, about the new Paramount Star Trek movie (and the new Chekov), and about the aforementioned independent Trek films, and future projects. He mentions his frustration with Star Trek VI, which he also writes about in his autobiographical book, Warped Factors. But in that book he also writes about the pleasure he took in working on Chekov’s scenes in Star Trek IV, and on his final Paramount appearance as Chekov in Star Trek: Generations.
I also asked him about Burma. Burma is ruled by a despotic military dictatorship that engages in repression and ethnic cleansing, resulting in the destruction of over 3,000 villages—more than were destroyed in Darfur in that better-known turmoil—and causing thousands of refugees to flee for their lives.
The political and human rights situation in that country flared into the news recently, but months before that, Koenig and his son, Andrew, had traveled to the bordering country of Thailand to meet with refugees driven out of Burma, in order to bring some badly needed public attention to their plight. Before the recent huge demonstrations led by Buddhist monks, and the subsequent arrests and killings and international attention, he was just about the only celebrity talking about Burma and the atrocities that had gone virtually unnoticed. But we’ve come to expect such foresight as well as courage, compassion and intelligence from the crew of the Enterprise.
An element that our conversation added to my impression of him, which was confirmed by reading Warped Factors, is that he is an acting and writing professional, comfortable with the vocabulary of those professions and what that vocabulary means.
Walter Koenig attended Grinnell College in Iowa and UCLA. He was an acting student at the famous Neighborhood Playhouse in New York before returning to Los Angeles. He’s acted in live theatre (including several plays with Mark Lenard, who created the character of Sarek), taught acting, and has written for TV and film (which means he is a member of the Writers Guild, so we also talked briefly about the writers’ strike going on at the time of our conversation.)
I’ve edited the interview to make my questions sound less dorky, and to organize the subject matter being discussed.
I also asked him about Burma. Burma is ruled by a despotic military dictatorship that engages in repression and ethnic cleansing, resulting in the destruction of over 3,000 villages—more than were destroyed in Darfur in that better-known turmoil—and causing thousands of refugees to flee for their lives.
The political and human rights situation in that country flared into the news recently, but months before that, Koenig and his son, Andrew, had traveled to the bordering country of Thailand to meet with refugees driven out of Burma, in order to bring some badly needed public attention to their plight. Before the recent huge demonstrations led by Buddhist monks, and the subsequent arrests and killings and international attention, he was just about the only celebrity talking about Burma and the atrocities that had gone virtually unnoticed. But we’ve come to expect such foresight as well as courage, compassion and intelligence from the crew of the Enterprise.
An element that our conversation added to my impression of him, which was confirmed by reading Warped Factors, is that he is an acting and writing professional, comfortable with the vocabulary of those professions and what that vocabulary means.
Walter Koenig attended Grinnell College in Iowa and UCLA. He was an acting student at the famous Neighborhood Playhouse in New York before returning to Los Angeles. He’s acted in live theatre (including several plays with Mark Lenard, who created the character of Sarek), taught acting, and has written for TV and film (which means he is a member of the Writers Guild, so we also talked briefly about the writers’ strike going on at the time of our conversation.)
I’ve edited the interview to make my questions sound less dorky, and to organize the subject matter being discussed.
The Interview: INALIENABLE
When the main character in this movie complains about the little monster around the house, he’s not kidding. There’s a certain creature feature factor in this film, perhaps due to its indiredt origins (as we learn in this interview) in the 50s classic, The Blob. But in true Trek style, writer Walter Koenig has more in mind—like, does an alien have inalienable rights? Like the best of Trek, InAlienable tells a fascinating “what if” story that nevertheless deals with contemporary human and political issues, including in this case, some being weighed right now by the U.S. Supreme Court. He also acts in the film and is its Executive Producer, with Sky Conway as one of the producers.
The cast of InAlienable includes Star Trek actors Marina Sirtis, Gary Graham, Alan Ruck, Tim Russ, J.G. Hertzler and Richard Herd, as well as Richard Hatch of Battlestar Galactica as the lead, Courtney Peldon of Boston Public, Jay Acovone of Stargate SG-1, Patricia Tallman of Battlestar, the veteran Eric Avari of, among many other projects, Jonathan Frakes’ The Librarian: Return to King Solomon’s Mines, young Jett Patrick, as well as Walter’s wife Judy Levitt, his son Andrew Koenig—both of whom also have appeared in Star Trek films or TV-- and daughter Danielle Koenig.
Q. What can you say about the story you tell in InAlienable?
WK. It’s about a scientist who lost his wife and his son in an accident that he feels responsible for. Eight years later he discovers he hosts what he initially believes is a parasite in his body. He goes through an evolution of emotions regarding the fact that he’s harboring this alien--from a scientific objectivity to a sense of repulsion, because he learns that it carries his DNA, and it is a monster of a sort. He feels it’s his curse, because he was responsible for the death of wife and child. But then he in effect gives birth to it, and ultimately he bonds with it. The government tries to take it from him, and there’s a custody hearing that’s the third act of the film.
Q. The line in the trailer that grabbed me was said by the defense attorney: “even aliens have inalienable rights.”
WK. Right, that was the whole idea behind the story: what constitutes an alien? And particularly one born here in this world, and should he not have available the same rights as anybody else? That was the basis of the custody hearing.
Q. You have quite a cast.
WK. I feel blessed that we had such a talented group –we made this film for very little money—well under a million dollars—and I had absolutely top- notch talent. Richard Hatch is really quite brilliant in the lead role. Cosrtney Peldon is wonderful as the leading lady. Marina Sirtis is really spectacular-- she is the attorney for the government, and she is so powerful. Eric Avari who plays Howard Ellis, the attorney you spoke of, brings a great sense of humor to the role. It’s a very intense story with a lot of deep emotion, and he really brought a wonderful balance.
I originally wrote the script seven years ago—actors have such extraordinary egos and they can’t perceive themselves as being anything other than a leading man, so I thought I would play the leading role. After a few years I realized that was out of the question, but what Richard did with it is precisely the way I would have approached it. On the other hand, when I wrote the character Howard Ellis I wrote it for a different kind of person, someone more like Ethan Phillips [who played Neelix on Star Trek: Voyager] but he wasn’t available. Eric was just one of those inspirational things--he read it and loved it, and we knew he had strong credentials, so we offered him the role—and he brought a whole different element to it, which was a delightful surprise. I wanted it to have some humor in it, but he brought his own approach. He was great.
Q. And Robert Dyke is the director?
WK. Yes. He did a film with Bruce Campbell and myself back in 1989 called Moontrap, which was very successful on video for a film without a general release. It was a science fiction movie, though one considerably different than mine. So I knew his work, he was very enthusiastic about the screenplay, and we were able to afford him, and I think he did a good job.
When the main character in this movie complains about the little monster around the house, he’s not kidding. There’s a certain creature feature factor in this film, perhaps due to its indiredt origins (as we learn in this interview) in the 50s classic, The Blob. But in true Trek style, writer Walter Koenig has more in mind—like, does an alien have inalienable rights? Like the best of Trek, InAlienable tells a fascinating “what if” story that nevertheless deals with contemporary human and political issues, including in this case, some being weighed right now by the U.S. Supreme Court. He also acts in the film and is its Executive Producer, with Sky Conway as one of the producers.
The cast of InAlienable includes Star Trek actors Marina Sirtis, Gary Graham, Alan Ruck, Tim Russ, J.G. Hertzler and Richard Herd, as well as Richard Hatch of Battlestar Galactica as the lead, Courtney Peldon of Boston Public, Jay Acovone of Stargate SG-1, Patricia Tallman of Battlestar, the veteran Eric Avari of, among many other projects, Jonathan Frakes’ The Librarian: Return to King Solomon’s Mines, young Jett Patrick, as well as Walter’s wife Judy Levitt, his son Andrew Koenig—both of whom also have appeared in Star Trek films or TV-- and daughter Danielle Koenig.
Q. What can you say about the story you tell in InAlienable?
WK. It’s about a scientist who lost his wife and his son in an accident that he feels responsible for. Eight years later he discovers he hosts what he initially believes is a parasite in his body. He goes through an evolution of emotions regarding the fact that he’s harboring this alien--from a scientific objectivity to a sense of repulsion, because he learns that it carries his DNA, and it is a monster of a sort. He feels it’s his curse, because he was responsible for the death of wife and child. But then he in effect gives birth to it, and ultimately he bonds with it. The government tries to take it from him, and there’s a custody hearing that’s the third act of the film.
Q. The line in the trailer that grabbed me was said by the defense attorney: “even aliens have inalienable rights.”
WK. Right, that was the whole idea behind the story: what constitutes an alien? And particularly one born here in this world, and should he not have available the same rights as anybody else? That was the basis of the custody hearing.
Q. You have quite a cast.
WK. I feel blessed that we had such a talented group –we made this film for very little money—well under a million dollars—and I had absolutely top- notch talent. Richard Hatch is really quite brilliant in the lead role. Cosrtney Peldon is wonderful as the leading lady. Marina Sirtis is really spectacular-- she is the attorney for the government, and she is so powerful. Eric Avari who plays Howard Ellis, the attorney you spoke of, brings a great sense of humor to the role. It’s a very intense story with a lot of deep emotion, and he really brought a wonderful balance.
I originally wrote the script seven years ago—actors have such extraordinary egos and they can’t perceive themselves as being anything other than a leading man, so I thought I would play the leading role. After a few years I realized that was out of the question, but what Richard did with it is precisely the way I would have approached it. On the other hand, when I wrote the character Howard Ellis I wrote it for a different kind of person, someone more like Ethan Phillips [who played Neelix on Star Trek: Voyager] but he wasn’t available. Eric was just one of those inspirational things--he read it and loved it, and we knew he had strong credentials, so we offered him the role—and he brought a whole different element to it, which was a delightful surprise. I wanted it to have some humor in it, but he brought his own approach. He was great.
Q. And Robert Dyke is the director?
WK. Yes. He did a film with Bruce Campbell and myself back in 1989 called Moontrap, which was very successful on video for a film without a general release. It was a science fiction movie, though one considerably different than mine. So I knew his work, he was very enthusiastic about the screenplay, and we were able to afford him, and I think he did a good job.
Q. Where did this story come from?
WK. I wrote it so long ago, I don’t know precisely how I got started on this. I do remember that I invited some friends over to watch the World Series. One was Sky Conway and another was Tony Franke--he was in the original The Blob, he played Steve McQueen’s friend. Sky got all excited because that was one of his favorite science fiction movies of all time. I think he suggested that if we could do something like that… I hadn’t been thinking about writing a story, putting together a project, but I came up with some ideas, and I wrote a step outline. Sky was enthusiastic about it so I went on and wrote a screenplay.
Q. And now you’re trying out a new model of distribution with Internet pay-for-view.
WK. Certainly everyone is becoming aware of the Internet for such purposes, and it’s going to be the first way we will distribute the film. There are other options as well later on—we have contact with the Sci-Fi network. DVDs and foreign distribution of DVDs are viable options, I think, and if we can get the film into some festivals we can open up more opportunities.
While I was waiting for the screenplay to be produced I decided to write it as a novel, and as a matter of fact this last weekend I was in New York, and I met with a young, enthusiastic agent who’d read the work, and we have struck a pact. She has several publishing houses in mind, and we’ll go from there.
WK. I wrote it so long ago, I don’t know precisely how I got started on this. I do remember that I invited some friends over to watch the World Series. One was Sky Conway and another was Tony Franke--he was in the original The Blob, he played Steve McQueen’s friend. Sky got all excited because that was one of his favorite science fiction movies of all time. I think he suggested that if we could do something like that… I hadn’t been thinking about writing a story, putting together a project, but I came up with some ideas, and I wrote a step outline. Sky was enthusiastic about it so I went on and wrote a screenplay.
Q. And now you’re trying out a new model of distribution with Internet pay-for-view.
WK. Certainly everyone is becoming aware of the Internet for such purposes, and it’s going to be the first way we will distribute the film. There are other options as well later on—we have contact with the Sci-Fi network. DVDs and foreign distribution of DVDs are viable options, I think, and if we can get the film into some festivals we can open up more opportunities.
While I was waiting for the screenplay to be produced I decided to write it as a novel, and as a matter of fact this last weekend I was in New York, and I met with a young, enthusiastic agent who’d read the work, and we have struck a pact. She has several publishing houses in mind, and we’ll go from there.
CHEKOV
It’s a weird month for Pavel Chekov. A new actor will go before the Paramount cameras to play him in the J.J. Abrams movie, while a different young Chekov suddenly ages in the New Voyages web series, To Serve All My Days—but it is Walter Koenig as the older Chekov who stars in that webisode, being re-released this month in a revised version. And he plays Pavel going through yet another transformation in Star Trek: Of Gods and Men. Science fiction characters have to get used to sudden changes—but what about the actors who play them? How is Walter Koenig coping?
Q. The inevitable question—how do you feel about the new Star Trek movie?
WK. I think it’s great. I’m sure they’ll do an excellent job. They’ve got some very creative people involved in making this film.
Q. How do you feel about somebody else taking over the role of Chekov?
WK. The young man playing Chekov [Anton Yelchin] is 19 years old. I don’t have proprietary feelings about somebody playing Chekov at the age of 19—that would be preposterous. If they cast somebody at the age of 71 playing Chekov and they didn’t cast me, I might feel differently.
I wish him well. I hope he makes it his own. I don’t think that any of us should be held up as the definitive portrayal of one of the original characters—well, except maybe Leonard as Spock. There’s a thousand actors who could play any of the other roles and bring their own sensibility to it, and make it equally truthful. I’ve been asked a number of times what would I tell this young man—I would tell him just to find it for himself and make it his. If you start imitating someone else it’s never yours, and as a consequence it’s never as truthful as it should be. It doesn’t come from within you. So I just say, make it yours, own it, and I’m sure it’ll be good.
It’s a weird month for Pavel Chekov. A new actor will go before the Paramount cameras to play him in the J.J. Abrams movie, while a different young Chekov suddenly ages in the New Voyages web series, To Serve All My Days—but it is Walter Koenig as the older Chekov who stars in that webisode, being re-released this month in a revised version. And he plays Pavel going through yet another transformation in Star Trek: Of Gods and Men. Science fiction characters have to get used to sudden changes—but what about the actors who play them? How is Walter Koenig coping?
Q. The inevitable question—how do you feel about the new Star Trek movie?
WK. I think it’s great. I’m sure they’ll do an excellent job. They’ve got some very creative people involved in making this film.
Q. How do you feel about somebody else taking over the role of Chekov?
WK. The young man playing Chekov [Anton Yelchin] is 19 years old. I don’t have proprietary feelings about somebody playing Chekov at the age of 19—that would be preposterous. If they cast somebody at the age of 71 playing Chekov and they didn’t cast me, I might feel differently.
I wish him well. I hope he makes it his own. I don’t think that any of us should be held up as the definitive portrayal of one of the original characters—well, except maybe Leonard as Spock. There’s a thousand actors who could play any of the other roles and bring their own sensibility to it, and make it equally truthful. I’ve been asked a number of times what would I tell this young man—I would tell him just to find it for himself and make it his. If you start imitating someone else it’s never yours, and as a consequence it’s never as truthful as it should be. It doesn’t come from within you. So I just say, make it yours, own it, and I’m sure it’ll be good.
Q. It’s interesting that this is happening after you’ve had two recent opportunities to revisit the role, and to do more with the character than you’ve been given the opportunity to do before. Does that play into how you feel about being able to pass the baton?
WK. I’m sure it does-- it maybe makes me a little more comfortable. I certainly am happier for the opportunity to play Chekov again, particularly in To Serve All My Days. When New Voyages approached me and asked me if I’d be interested, I told them only if I could tell a story that would bring me some closure as an actor playing that role. Even in the best of circumstances, Chekov was an expository character—he was just there to get the story going, not to dwell on anything introspective. But this story is all introspection—it’s all about what Chekov felt about his life, what had gone before, and what he was facing. So I felt really, really good about having that opportunity.
I felt very frustrated over the course of the years I’ve been associated with Star Trek that there had been so little of that acting process for me. When we did Star Trek VI, as good a film as that was, I was truly unhappy because I thought that here was our last film—or so we thought—and it would really give us, the supporting characters, some exposure to what makes these characters tick. And it really didn’t do that. So doing To Serve All My Days—even if nobody watches it, it made me feel good. It made me feel that I had somehow maintained some integrity, by being allowed to make this character more human, more dimensional.
Q. How was that story developed?
WK. A friend of mine in England who’d worked on the first New Voyages episode was sort of the conduit between the people who were doing it and myself—he said to me, I think I suggested to them doing a sequel to “The Deadly Years”, since you didn’t grow old in that story. What if you grow old? I thought that was perfect. I met with Dorothy Fontana and I pitched the idea to her, and how it would transpire—steps that one goes through when you’re facing your mortality: the denial, the defiance and all the other steps, until you finally come to acceptance. And with that in mind she wrote the teleplay—and did a very good job.
WK. I’m sure it does-- it maybe makes me a little more comfortable. I certainly am happier for the opportunity to play Chekov again, particularly in To Serve All My Days. When New Voyages approached me and asked me if I’d be interested, I told them only if I could tell a story that would bring me some closure as an actor playing that role. Even in the best of circumstances, Chekov was an expository character—he was just there to get the story going, not to dwell on anything introspective. But this story is all introspection—it’s all about what Chekov felt about his life, what had gone before, and what he was facing. So I felt really, really good about having that opportunity.
I felt very frustrated over the course of the years I’ve been associated with Star Trek that there had been so little of that acting process for me. When we did Star Trek VI, as good a film as that was, I was truly unhappy because I thought that here was our last film—or so we thought—and it would really give us, the supporting characters, some exposure to what makes these characters tick. And it really didn’t do that. So doing To Serve All My Days—even if nobody watches it, it made me feel good. It made me feel that I had somehow maintained some integrity, by being allowed to make this character more human, more dimensional.
Q. How was that story developed?
WK. A friend of mine in England who’d worked on the first New Voyages episode was sort of the conduit between the people who were doing it and myself—he said to me, I think I suggested to them doing a sequel to “The Deadly Years”, since you didn’t grow old in that story. What if you grow old? I thought that was perfect. I met with Dorothy Fontana and I pitched the idea to her, and how it would transpire—steps that one goes through when you’re facing your mortality: the denial, the defiance and all the other steps, until you finally come to acceptance. And with that in mind she wrote the teleplay—and did a very good job.
Q. And then you played Chekov again in Of Gods and Men, and the first part of that is finally going to be seen this month.
WK. I was initially very dispassionate about that project. I only agreed because Sky Conway is a very close friend of mine. Then when we started working on it-- it really wasn’t until I got on the set that I realized, here was a character with enormous conflict and tremendous passion—and again, nothing like what Chekov was ever allowed to show—a powerful character that would have been interesting to play under any circumstances, whether he was named Chekov or not. It became a wonderful challenge for me, and something that I really, really enjoyed as a performer.
WK. I was initially very dispassionate about that project. I only agreed because Sky Conway is a very close friend of mine. Then when we started working on it-- it really wasn’t until I got on the set that I realized, here was a character with enormous conflict and tremendous passion—and again, nothing like what Chekov was ever allowed to show—a powerful character that would have been interesting to play under any circumstances, whether he was named Chekov or not. It became a wonderful challenge for me, and something that I really, really enjoyed as a performer.
BURMA AND THE FUTURE
Walter’s website has photos and diaries from his trip to visit with refugees from the rapes, repression, disease, destruction and chaos of Burma. He describes how under the current military regime “a country with some of the greatest natural resources in the world began a steady downward spiral: economically, educationally, politically, humanistically…Over the last four decades the military budget has grown to between thirty and fifty per cent of all spending–and this in a country that has no external enemies. Health care services are currently about three per cent of the budget, and only eight per cent is allotted to education. The major exports from Burma now are heroin and HIV/AIDS. The government, in the effort to suppress dissension, has engaged in systematic destruction of the infrastructure of the ethnic states within its borders.” That repression includes rapes, and spreading land mines at its borders.
Here he describes how Burma made the news, and what has happened since his visit to the region, before a hint about his immediate future.
Q. Have you been following Burma situation since you were there?
WK. Yes, to some degree. I know that after the initial broadening of the world’s consciousness seems to have receded again, and that’s the problem, particularly in this country. If it isn’t about Paris Hilton, it really isn’t news that the media feels is worthwhile covering.
The regime there shot themselves in the foot when they raised gasoline prices 500%-- that’s what provoked the demonstrations, and brought the monks and the students out to protest. When that happened, and they began to fire on these demonstrators, and kill people and incarcerate them. And then they were doing again what they had done in the past-- oppressing the population in a very severe way. It took these demonstrations and the reaction of the government to make the world at least momentarily more aware of what was happening.
My objective in going there was not only to make the world more aware but to bring some pressure through the UN security council to pass a resolution condemning the behavior of the military government as a threat to the peace. In order to do that, they had to have the five standing members vote unanimously. That includes China, but until then China had resisted. They had vested interests in Burma the way it is—minerals, gas, natural resources, and an overland route to the sea among other things. But China is also trying to put on a good face because of the Olympics coming to Beijing and it took their support to pass that resolution. So to that extent, some progress has been made. The Security Resolution has been passed, but the pressure has to be continued to be applied. Hopefully it will receive the awareness that Darfur has received.
There’s more that has to be done. The United States no longer participates in investments in Burma, and no longer will import Burmese goods, which is great. Unfortunately, Chevron, an American company, owns a 25 or 26% share in the French oil business, so through Chevron is still making money on exports of oil from Burma. So there’s lots still to be done. In fact the Burmese government has a very depressing disinterest in what other countries feel. It has to be hit financially before it will have any effect on how they proceed.
Walter’s website has photos and diaries from his trip to visit with refugees from the rapes, repression, disease, destruction and chaos of Burma. He describes how under the current military regime “a country with some of the greatest natural resources in the world began a steady downward spiral: economically, educationally, politically, humanistically…Over the last four decades the military budget has grown to between thirty and fifty per cent of all spending–and this in a country that has no external enemies. Health care services are currently about three per cent of the budget, and only eight per cent is allotted to education. The major exports from Burma now are heroin and HIV/AIDS. The government, in the effort to suppress dissension, has engaged in systematic destruction of the infrastructure of the ethnic states within its borders.” That repression includes rapes, and spreading land mines at its borders.
Here he describes how Burma made the news, and what has happened since his visit to the region, before a hint about his immediate future.
Q. Have you been following Burma situation since you were there?
WK. Yes, to some degree. I know that after the initial broadening of the world’s consciousness seems to have receded again, and that’s the problem, particularly in this country. If it isn’t about Paris Hilton, it really isn’t news that the media feels is worthwhile covering.
The regime there shot themselves in the foot when they raised gasoline prices 500%-- that’s what provoked the demonstrations, and brought the monks and the students out to protest. When that happened, and they began to fire on these demonstrators, and kill people and incarcerate them. And then they were doing again what they had done in the past-- oppressing the population in a very severe way. It took these demonstrations and the reaction of the government to make the world at least momentarily more aware of what was happening.
My objective in going there was not only to make the world more aware but to bring some pressure through the UN security council to pass a resolution condemning the behavior of the military government as a threat to the peace. In order to do that, they had to have the five standing members vote unanimously. That includes China, but until then China had resisted. They had vested interests in Burma the way it is—minerals, gas, natural resources, and an overland route to the sea among other things. But China is also trying to put on a good face because of the Olympics coming to Beijing and it took their support to pass that resolution. So to that extent, some progress has been made. The Security Resolution has been passed, but the pressure has to be continued to be applied. Hopefully it will receive the awareness that Darfur has received.
There’s more that has to be done. The United States no longer participates in investments in Burma, and no longer will import Burmese goods, which is great. Unfortunately, Chevron, an American company, owns a 25 or 26% share in the French oil business, so through Chevron is still making money on exports of oil from Burma. So there’s lots still to be done. In fact the Burmese government has a very depressing disinterest in what other countries feel. It has to be hit financially before it will have any effect on how they proceed.
Q. What’s coming up in your future?
WK. Well, I wish I could say with absolute certainty, but there’s a film coming up in March in Austin, Texas—it’s a small film, the kind I’m always very impressed with when I watch the better festival films: small film, small cast, people relating to each other, not a heavy plot story. We’ve agreed on terms, it’s just a matter of whether they have all their resources together when its time to shoot. I’ve learned that you really can’t count on anything until they say ‘Action!’—and even then you don’t know until it’s done. So I’m reluctant to discuss it in any greater depth but I’m hopeful.
Q. I imagine the writers strike could complicate things.
WK. That’s also a problem. As a member of the Writers Guild, I hope the strike has a limited life and everybody can go back to work.
Q. The issues of the strike seem to be relevant for future projects like InAlienable that are distributed over the Internet. Whether the writers get a better cut.
WK. You bet, you bet. In 1980 they capitulated, because the producers said they had no idea of what kind of a life videos would have. As a consequence they accepted an almost infinitesimal percentage of any profits. The producers are pulling the same gag again—they don’t know what the internet is going to bring. My feeling is that if they don’t know then we should all be taking the same chance—give the writers a respectable cut in the profits, and if there are no profits, then everybody suffers. It’s probably more profound that I’m making it, I’m probably simplifying it too much, but I certainly hope they stand firm, because if it ain’t on the page it ain’t on the stage, that’s been forever.
WK. Well, I wish I could say with absolute certainty, but there’s a film coming up in March in Austin, Texas—it’s a small film, the kind I’m always very impressed with when I watch the better festival films: small film, small cast, people relating to each other, not a heavy plot story. We’ve agreed on terms, it’s just a matter of whether they have all their resources together when its time to shoot. I’ve learned that you really can’t count on anything until they say ‘Action!’—and even then you don’t know until it’s done. So I’m reluctant to discuss it in any greater depth but I’m hopeful.
Q. I imagine the writers strike could complicate things.
WK. That’s also a problem. As a member of the Writers Guild, I hope the strike has a limited life and everybody can go back to work.
Q. The issues of the strike seem to be relevant for future projects like InAlienable that are distributed over the Internet. Whether the writers get a better cut.
WK. You bet, you bet. In 1980 they capitulated, because the producers said they had no idea of what kind of a life videos would have. As a consequence they accepted an almost infinitesimal percentage of any profits. The producers are pulling the same gag again—they don’t know what the internet is going to bring. My feeling is that if they don’t know then we should all be taking the same chance—give the writers a respectable cut in the profits, and if there are no profits, then everybody suffers. It’s probably more profound that I’m making it, I’m probably simplifying it too much, but I certainly hope they stand firm, because if it ain’t on the page it ain’t on the stage, that’s been forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
