 :: Thursday, February 12, 2004 :: Aichoobay Shawn Baichoo is an acclaimed actor of stage and screen. As one of the founding members of the comedy troupe the Bionic Yahoos he has managed to develop one of the premiere comedy troupes in Montreal. I sat down with him to discuss what an actor has to offer to the comic book medium.  SUPER BAICHOO Jay D’Ici: Okay, for everyone who doesn’t know: Who are you, what do you do, and why should we love you? Shawn Baichoo: I am Shawn Baichoo! I am an actor (and a good one at that!), musician (drummer), writer, martial artist, sketch comedian and fight choreographer. I'm also an all-around great and funny guy, so all should love and adore me! You should also love me because I'm an Ambiguous, androgynous, ethno-urban metrosexual! (As coined by Paul De Tourreil) Jay: Now, what the hell does an actor have to offer an artist? What can a comic book artist learn from you? Shawn: Well, an actor is basically a tool that someone else uses to bring his vision/text/script to life. A good actor will bring his own ideas and thoughts to any project, but some actors tend to forget that they are there to be molded by others. I think the most obvious thing that an artist (comic artist) can learn from an actor would be in a modeling sense, capturing kinetic movements and such. Facial expressions and body language as they relate to any given emotion, situation, etc. I do think that comics and film are two vastly different mediums, but they do resemble each other in some respects, especially the storyboarding aspect. I don't know, though, if an actor could offer more than just a physical model (like Alex Ross uses for his paintings), because the act of creation for comics is a long and slow one, it's a very private thing, whereas an actor, a person, tends to let the creative (characterization) process be a more visceral thing, and less personal, as they are being directed/molded by another person/people. Jay: Well I’ve always seen the relationship (at least how I like to work) between writer and artist as being the writer functioning as the screenwriter and director, and the artist being both the cinematographer and the actors. I like to let the artists have the input on what is going on and developing the characters, both physically and also how they move on the page. How do you as an actor develop a character when you are preparing a part? Shawn: Well, there isn't one exact way I do it, it depends largely on the part and on the medium. On film/television, the preparation is more piecemeal, isolating individual moments/scenes and making choices centered around that, moments that will illustrate a thought/feeling/action, because the camera can focus in on that exact moment, guiding the audience's eye towards what needs to be seen/felt. There are also things that add to a film/television performance that I have absolutely no control over, such as music, lighting and especially editing. These things can take a great performance and mince it horribly, just as well as they can take some idiot pretty boy who can't act and make him look like Pacino. It's especially in times like these that a close working relationship with the director is very important, it helps to transcend some of those problems. Theatre, however, is quite different. That's a process that involves more character advance preparation, something that's done more closely with a director, and requires a more hands-on approach. Background, family, likes, dislikes, all of these things come into play, because you have to hit the stage as the character, and build towards whatever climax/moment that's involved in the play. The moments you get to, eventually, are real. Not that film acting isn't, but I can do the "oh my god my mother just died" scene 12-15 times in a row, emoting every time, on film, whereas on stage, you build up to that visceral moment over the course of many rehearsals, and that ONE moment on stage becomes very genuine. So the medium matters, but basically, the more work you do on your character, the research, the more background you find (or invent, as the case may be), the more you have to draw on to make the character real. Jay: I’ve always been a big fan of what I call “moments of absolute silence” in comics where things are expressed completely through the art. The best ones are generally emotional moments, or times where the characters take a moment to mull things over. I also realize that these are moments that are very difficult to do because it’s completely reliant on the artist to sell that moment, these are also some of my favorite moments on stage and on screen where the actor has to really sell that moment because if the don’t everything can fall apart, what are some of the things you do to help build up to those moments, and how do you finally sell them? Shawn: I'm also a very big fan of silence, be it on stage, film, TV, comics or even commercials (the latter one especially could benefit considerably from a lot more silence!). The beauty of silence is that it gives the viewer/reader the time and space to identify with the moment in their own way, as opposed to having it forced upon them with words. But I think you left out, in my opinion, one of the most important uses of silence, and that's in comedy. I for one have employed it many, many times, and it's a crucial part of comedic timing. As for selling a moment on stage, silence usually sells itself. I'm not saying that you needn't act, because that's how you build up to the moment, but just existing in the moment as your character and letting the audience become enveloped in the silence creates a unique situation. You know the saying, silence is golden. Well this holds particularity true on stage, and also to film in a lesser degree. When there is silence, the audience also becomes responsible for it, to keep it. The actors are always the ones to break it, but you know what I mean, you've seen it countless times, the main character finds out his wife just died, and you could hear a pin drop. I find silence creates a sort of "blanket" around a situation or emotion on stage or screen, it isolates it and allows the audience to focus on its meaning or purpose. Jay: Can you explain a bit about some of the different schools of acting and how they work, and which ones you prefer? Shawn: I don't adhere to any one school in particular, though if I had to pick one, it'd be the "Baichoo" school of acting. That is to say, that every actor is the sum total of his own experiences, and this will always affect your acting, whether those experiences are life experiences or schools of acting. There are many "types" of acting, and they're all valid in their own way. It's like asking a carpenter which tool he prefers. He may have a penchant for one, but he'll use them all in order to make a dresser. But here are some examples: 1. Method acting, which involves immersing yourself in the part/situation for real, which I've never been a fan of. Actors are supposed to act, after all. 2. There's another technique (I forget the name) which involves recalling real-life equivalents to what your character is experiencing and to use that/those emotions to capture that specific feeling. I use this sparingly, because: a) I don't have the full gamut of human emotions locked into moments I can easily recall when acting and b) doing so is a little emotionally dangerous, because it requires both extreme vulnerability and involvement, and some people get lost in their own feelings. 3. There are other schools, like Stanislavski, which all emphasize different approaches, be they repetition, scene breakdown, character improv, etc. I think all good actors take a little from each (whatever works for them) and leave the rest. I know I do. Jay: Now you mentioned improvisation, which is something I’ve always enjoyed when done well. I’ve had artists I’ve worked with actually “improvise” (written and drawn) one page strips based on the story and characters as “in between” moments that don’t really relate to the story as a whole but does somewhat capture the characters doing their thing outside the story as a whole. How do you go about improvising for characters, both dramatically and comedicly? How does it serve you as an actor? And do you have any tips on how to do good improve in those situations? Shawn: I find improv an essential tool in developing a character, be it comedic or dramatic. It gives you the freedom to find your own voice within the character, it lets you explore aspects of the character that don't relate directly to the play, but that allow you to create some history for yourself. For example, when I was rehearsing Fir$t, Joel (the director) had Maggie (playing my wife) and I improvise our first meeting/subsequent date in a bar. It didn't impact the play directly, like I said, but it helped me flesh out small details about our relationship and gave me actual memories to draw upon in the course of the play. How to do it is simple: find a situation/relationship that relates to your character initially, and play it out from there. The beauty with improv is that you can go anywhere, say anything, without being boxed in by a script/situation. There is one trap, however: I've heard actors in the past say "My character wouldn't do that", which is easy to fall into. But the truth is, as in real life, that under the right circumstances, anyone can be driven to do anything. It's your job as an actor to find those circumstances. Doing good improv is simply a matter of staying in character, and letting whatever comes out of that process be natural. Don't try to force anything, like saying or doing something in a given situation because that's what you would expect to see/hear. If it flows from the moment, it will be what you want to hear/see from the character. Improv is all about the unexpected. Jay: What have been some of the biggest challenges you’ve faced as an actor? Shawn: Well, we don't have 20 pages here, so I'll just pick a couple, because I find acting as challenging as it is fun. In my earlier days, one of my biggest challenges was learning an incredible amount of very dense text for a one man show (True Faith), most of it at the last possible second. This also applied to Lenny & Reno. Add the fact that they were, respectively, a one-man and a two-man show, and you've got yourself a challenge. But all of that made me a lot more confident, because I now know that I can handle anything! More recently, the most challenging thing I've had to do was play a very serious character in a TV show, when I'm used to doing zany/physical comedy most of the time. It was an emotionally heavy scene, and my fear was that I'd miss the mark and wind up doing a comedic performance in stead. But it taught me restraint, which is good, because, as they say in my business, less is more. It was also the first bilingual shoot I've ever done, which showed me that I'm as good an actor in English as I am in French. J: On the subject of “less is more”, Dave McKean pared down his art style from what he did in Batman: Arkham Asylum to a more basic structure based style seen in Cages because he kept getting approached at conventions with portfolios that where all flash with no basic structure. I actually find that artists who use less detail in their drawings have more recognizable characters in general than those who get caught up in details, and that in many cases (such as in Cages) the characters are more defined and can get more emotion across than if they were bogged down in various details visually. Do you have any advise on how to how to get the “less is more” feel without losing what you are trying to get across? Shawn: I think that really depends on the story. Some stories demand more detail because what they're trying to get across is more complex. Take the Matrix for example. What matters in the first movie is the idea, the overall concept of the prison/struggle to break free. There are many things that aren't explained in detail, but they're inconsequential in light of the overall story/idea. But the sequel is nothing but the details, and it proves to be too much of that and not enough story. I think Finder is another prime example. The world is tremendously involved (though it only relates to the story in a minimal way), but the art is very simplistic, and I find this leads to a weird dichotomy: The story is very rich, but utterly confusing. Here more visual detail would have served better. The basic idea here is that the audience will always enjoy more working things out for themselves as opposed to being spoon-fed. Less is more in the sense that it forces people to pay more attention and invest more in the story/performance/art, but you run the danger of losing some people if it's too little. As in all things, balance is key. J: Another similar problem that comic artists and actors have in common is interpreting pre-established characters. There have been five James Bonds I believe, a bunch of Batmans and so forth. A comic artist is often faced with interpreting a character that has been long established, and drawn by various others who may have vastly different styles, and he also has to live up to the audiences expectations. You have played Dogberry from Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing yourself, a role that was also played by Michael Keaton in Kenneth Brannagh’s popular film version. Putting aside the differences of playing characters on film and on stage, how do you develop a character that has been long established and has had many popular interpretations? S: Good question. I can't say I've had to face that challenge too many times in my career so far, so it's a little difficult to answer honestly. Dogberry was in my early years of acting, when I was still learning my craft. I took an established character (which I will admit was at least inspired from Michael Keaton's performance) and gave it my best, though in retrospect I'm sure I could have done far more today were I given the chance. It's a question of taking something and making it your own, without forgetting the all-important aspects that make that character unique. That's also where the actor's own personality comes into play, because that will infuse the character with something original right off the bat, man. And segueway... like Christian Bale being cast as Batman. He's an excellent actor, but he doesn't have to worry about portraying the brooding and the solemnity, because his persona allows for that already. I mean as opposed to casting, say... Will Farrell, who would have a mountain of things he'd have to disassociate himself from before assuming the mantle. I believe energy is very important in casting, it's that invisible thing that just makes a character "click". Research is also important, it's like improv that's already been done for you! If I were playing Batman, I'd have a wealth of source material to draw from. I would make choices based on what resonated with me as an actor, and also what I thought would just make for plain awesome film/TV/theatre. But there's a trap that you can fall into (and I've seen countless bigwig actors do this), and that's to play the character without being the character. Take Ben Affleck as Daredevil. Groan. You can actually see him running around in his sloppy leather outfit thinking "man, I'm so cool, I'm fuckin' Daredevil!" Hence the lack of depth or believability in the performance. Same thing with Colin Farrell as Bullshit. Sorry, Bullseye. One note. Yawn. You can't go around acting the character based solely on what you've seen of him and merely think might look/sound "cool" to you. You're not acting for you. You're acting for everyone else. If it doesn't come from you, as an impulse or a choice, then it's worthless. J: Okay, having said that an actor’s history can end up bringing a lot of baggage to a role, do you have any advise to get out of that situation? You yourself have had to deal with often being tagged as “the funny guy” as an actor, how important is diversity compared to specialization? S: To me, diversity is essential, which must seem pretty funny coming from a guy who gets most of his work based on his physical comedy abilities. But I believe, especially when you're starting out as actor, that you have to use what you have. You're good looking? Be the heartthrob the first few times. Kinda geeky looking? Use it. Be the nerd/science geek/Jay D'Ici(ouch!) in that commercial or TV show. It's what I did. And through that I made contacts, gained experience and confidence, got my ACTRA membership, and basically started to evolve as an actor. And now when I look back at my career, I see that I've played a wide range of characers, and they're not all comedic. Comedy is still what I do best, but I think I've shown people through my work that I can indeed play other things, and well. Now, if you're Jim Carrey, who rocketed to fame through such movies as Ace Ventura (which is brilliant), The Mask, The Cable Guy and Liar Liar (all movies with basically the same rubber-face shtick), it can be quite difficult to break that mold. Firstly, because people start to want to only see you play those kind of roles, and secondly, as I think Jim proved, he's not much cut out for the more dramatic stuff, because I don't think he has it in him. Comedy is his thing. And besides, I'm by no means well-known enough right now for anyone to slate me into a specific slot yet, so I don't have to worry about that. J: Okay, lets have some fun, how would you play the following characters. If I had the time and patience, I'd love to go in depth on all these characters, but I'm all out of time and my patience has been multi-tasking all week, so you get the short and sweet. a) Superman Haunted. He has the weight of the whole world on his shoulders (he sees it this way) and he can't save everyone, though he wishes he could. A great man at heart with an undying love for all life. b) Martian Manhunter (JLA) Quiet. Rarely speaks. I would play him as a man who is utterly alone, and feels he will never fully undestand what it is to be like the humans of his adopted world, like Superman does. It's ironic, too, because he can change his appearance at will, he can look like anyone, but it will never be enough. There would always be a falsehood to it. I think Alex Ross' depiction of Bruce Wayne putting his arm around J'onn J'onzz (at some meeting, I forget where) in Kingdom Come says it all. c) Cyclopes (X-Men) I love Cyclops, and I think it's a real shame that everyone is always peeing on poor Scott. Arguably one of the most powerful X-Men, I see him as a good looking guy of great intellect and compassion, who takes it all upon himself to see that his team succeeds. He's hard on himself because he has to be, and others are hard on him because ultimately (pardon the pun), they feel threatened or intimidated by him. e) Wonder Woman I always thought that Wonder Woman should have a little bit of a chip on her shoulder. People are always judging her because she's a woman, but she can crush any man she wants. I think she shouldn't be quite so sweet, more of a no-nonsense bitch when she wants to get results. And she often wants results! I think she's at her most pure and well written in Kingdom Come (I'm a fan, what can I say?) f) Jaeger (Finder) I've only read the first two trades so far, so I'll go with... a little arrogant, lustful, very independent and annoying at times. But he has a real sense of loyalty. g) Tetsuo (Akira) Do you mean Tetsuo from the Anime or Tetsuo from the graphic novel? They're kind of different. But basically, he's a misunderstood little guy who's tired of being picked on his whole life and once he gets some real power he takes to it like a moth to a flame and gets consumed by it while alternatively exulting in it/fearing it. h) What comic character would you most like to have a chance to play? Unquestionably, undeniably, unflinchingly, Spiderman!! I think I'd be great as Peter Parker! I'm funny, fit, agile, quirky, I can fight and I think I have an energy that resonates well with that character. AND I'm a huge fan of Mary-Jane... she's smokin'! (If you look carefully you can see the hidden meaning!) J: Aside from acting, you’re also a writer, primarily sketches for your sketch comedy troupe The Bionic Yahoos. Do you find there are any major differences between your working for others and working on your own stuff? (Aside from the obvious length issues.) And do you have any advice about writing comedy? S: Big difference. Writing for yourself is thrilling because you can do anything you want, but the trap is also that you don't have any borders, so your work could get out of hand. It's harder to have perspective. Working for others is also thrilling though, because you have the challenge of delivering the best possible performance based on a given set of parameters. Advice? Uhh... Let others be brutally honest with your material, and TAKE THE CRITICISM. Like I said earlier, you act or write, in the end, for others to enjoy. People know what they find funny. Listen to the people, no matter how brilliant you think you are. J: As a comic reader what would you like to see more of in comics? S: I'm a huge fan of action, and I've been reading recently a slew of more yakkity-yak based comics, and those tend to lose me. Don't get me wrong, I love a well written story and snappy dialogue, but it's a comic! Each page is an opportunity to go beyond movies, television or even writing, with imagery! Use it! I think Ultimate Spiderman is along those lines, as well as Preacher and The Authority. I love a comic that will sweep me up with spectacle, but matched by a good story and dialogue. J: Now looking back through your answers, do you still feel that actors have nothing more to offer comic artists in their crafting of characters than to serve as character models? S: I guess I see your point, you manipulative bastard. But I guess that's more up to the comic artist, though, because in the end, he needs to be aware that actors can indeed offer much more than just a body to draw. J: Now the tag line end question: If you could Supersize anything on the planet what would you Supersize? S: Well I won't state the obvious male answer, because I don't think, realistically, that Vikki would want me to anyway, so I'll have to go with... Understanding. If people understood each other and the world more, this planet would be an infinitely better place. Peace.  * * * You can catch Shawn performing this Sunday when The Bionic Yahoos present: "Victims of Valentine" Sunday Feb 15th @ 8:00 pm. At the Comedy Works (1238) Bishop. $5 (cheap and well worth it.) He will also be invading television screens in a new McDonald’s add due to start airing on the 18th of this month. We'll be back in two weeks. -Jay 8:35 PM + Jay D'Ici + permalink |