Existence of satire is indication of health within a free culture: Tim Robbins

Tim Robbins plays the second of half of the lead for satire The Brink, also starring Jack Black. First season of the series is based on a geopolitical crisis in Pakistan which is about to bring the world very close to the possible World War Three.

Tim Robbins portrays Walter Larson. As Vanity Fair describes the character, he is a skirt-chasing, booze-swilling secretary of state. In this interview, Robbins talks about the series, satire, acting, directing, and many other things. 

Q: How would you describe Walter?

TR: Complicated. He’s got a strong sense of what is right and wrong as far as foreign policy goes, but he’s maybe a little bit challenged in the domestic relationship area.

Q: When we first meet him, he doesn’t seem wholly focused on the matter at hand, politically…

TR: That was what was great, I got the call and then they said there’s a script coming, they want you to play the US Secretary of State, and I said, oh, alright, that could be boring. And then I read that first scene, I was like, oh my god, these guys are onto something here. And by the time I finished the script I was in.

Q: But he’s not incompetent - he actually seems very, very competent.

TR: He’s the most competent in the room. He’s the only voice of reason in the 'Situation Room' - he’s the one that’s trying to hold us back from a nuclear future. And I don’t know how you get higher stakes than that. That’s always what you’re looking for with a character: how important is this story? That’s tantamount. How important are the stakes to this character? What level of emotion are we going to be dealing with?

And what I loved about this script was that there was nothing casual. It was, from the first scene to the last, important. The stakes were very high.

Let's face it. You can’t get higher stakes than a potential nuclear war or a sexual act that involves your possible death.

Q: When you read about the psychology of people in those positions, actually the two are often, do go hand in hand in terms of adrenaline and risk-taking…

TR: Oh yeah. Some people are wired that way, and that’s what I loved about the character - he lives large and fast and hard.

Q: Did you speak to anyone in the State Department about what happens in those situation rooms? 

TR: No, I did not talk to anyone in the state department about it. And I suppose I could have - I have met John Kerry, I’ve played hockey with him and supported him in his campaign. But I didn’t feel that was necessary because it wasn’t John Kerry I was playing by any stretch of the imagination.

I felt that what it needed was an investment of belief in what we were doing and a knowledge of what is possible in political arenas. Politicians are not all the same - there are some that really do want to serve their country, really do want to make life better for the people they serve, and there are some that have agendas and that are either financially driven or even worse, driven by some kind of twisted faith in a retributive god.

And so, I felt that what was nice about the script was that it was addressing all of these things: the nature of power, how certain people manipulate information to achieve their agendas, and what it is to truly serve your constituents with their best interests at heart.  

That all these issues could be addressed satirically and with an entertaining and humorous approach made it all the more enjoyable experience. 

Q: Do you think in some ways it’s easier to address these sorts of things comedically?

TR: No, it’s more difficult - you see how many shows there have been that have addressed it dramatically. And they do so by inevitably scaring their audience, and in a way what I liked about this was that it not only was a satire about American foreign policy and what was going on in the world and the behaviour of politicians and power brokers, but it was also, in a way, satirising those shows that we have been watching over the past ten years.

Q: What’s the appeal of satire, for you?

TR: Satire is important to a culture, we haven’t had a lot of satire recently.I don’t think anyone said Dr. Strangelove made light of the potential for nuclear catastrophe. In fact, it probably illuminated that possibility more so than any other film made before or after it, because it brought an audience into the absurdity of it. 

And in the absurdity lay the possibility that it actually could happen. So, if you introduce that concept through satire, it can be more effective than doing so in a drama.

Q: Why do you think we’ve had a lack of it in recent years?

TR: I think people have been nervous about content. And that's a shame.  A robust, democratic society is able to look at itself, skewer itself, and still be standing, confidently. We have been a lot more secure with our self reflection in the past. Still, I feel we are moving in the right direction.  

I don’t imagine there’s a lot of satire in Russia right now. I don’t imagine that there’s, you know, an appetite for satire in terrorist organisations. So, in a way, the fact that satire exists is an indication of a certain health within a free culture.

And as difficult as it might be for some people to be skewered, those that understand what it takes to live in freedom understand that self reflection and criticism are necessary and essential constructs. 

 Q: You directed an episode of the show and you’ve referenced Dr. Strangelove. What are the other influences that you were thinking of in terms of tone in the show?

TR: It was absolutely essential that the tone be believable - we are dealing with a serious matter, and it was essential that the humour comes out of the reality of the situation, and not out of, oh look at me, I’m being clever. Once you cross that line, you’re dead. And I think that everybody on the team understood this.

Q: How difficult is it to direct and act at the same time?

TR: It’s weird - I realised when I was doing it, that I haven’t done it since Bob Roberts.

You have to be so ready as an actor - you have no time to indulge the actor part of you if you’re directing. If you get two or three takes, that’s a luxury, because you know the larger picture, which is the whole day, all the shots that you need to get, is what takes precedence. 

 So you basically make your decisions beforehand as an actor - you know that you’re going to play it a certain way and you’re going to know the lines and you’re going to charge through it and get it right, but you don’t have a lot of time for indulgences or six, seven takes or looking at playback, or, I wonder if I did this and how did I look - none of that can be in there.

Q: What different parts of you does directing satisfy compared to acting?

TR: I like being involved with the creative whole. I do it all the time in the theatre.

I like being able to get all the elements together and then figure out a way to make it concise and get the pace right. It’s fun from beginning to end because you’re first dealing with the script, and testing yourself every day: what can be better, what can be better, what can be better?

And then on the set you have to function as not only a director, but as kind of the autocratic voice of: "we’ve got to keep moving forward to make the day."

And then in the editing room it becomes another journey of how do I get the weird little gems that we shot and put them in there?  And then, what do we have to lose, even though it makes us laugh? What do we have to sacrifice because the pace is off? It’s fun, it’s a challenge, and I really love, love doing it.