There and Back Again--a Fangirl's Tale, by Rose of Pollux

It’s been a long time, hasn’t it?  It’s been a year since our last post, and, goodness, do we apologize for that.  LuckyLadybug and I have been on several journeys through various fandoms within the last year.  My own path took me away from Simon for a while--specifically, first to 221 B Baker Street, and then to the TARDIS.  But here I am, back again.  There’s no way I could stay away.

One would wonder whether or not my forays into other fandoms would somehow dampen my ability to enjoy Simon and his characters.  The answer, of course, is a resounding no.  If anything, Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Who have allowed me to enjoy some of Simon’s roles even more than before.

How?  I’m glad you asked…

Let’s start with the example of Simon in Get Smart.  That was the first time I was ever introduced to Simon, and one of my favorite roles of his for that reason.  Some time ago, I had been rewatching that episode for nostalgia’s sake.  Nothing had ever been said about the final fate of Simon’s unnamed cowboy character--all we know is, according to Max, that he missed the truck of mattresses and fell five stories to the ground.  No possible way the poor Cowboy could survive a fall like that, right?  I assumed so… until I watched the finale of season 2 of BBC’s Sherlock.  If I learned anything from that episode, it’s that there’s every chance that the Cowboy could have survived his fall!  I’d like to think he did--that there’s a chance the story could continue…

Even more intriguing are the parallels between Simon’s Outer Limits appearance and Doctor Who; both Simon’s Empyrian character and the Doctor have the same basic modus operandi--try to stop an intergalactic cataclysm with the help of human companions.  On the surface, it seems that their methods of recruiting human companions are different; the Empyrian merely kidnaps them, while the Doctor invites them.  Intriguingly enough, though, if you look back at the First Doctor, before he mellowed out, he, like the Empyrian, kidnapped his first human companions in the very first episode of Doctor Who; even more intriguing is the fact that Simon’s episode of Outer Limits aired three and a half months after the first Doctor Who episode.

But, I digress.  Comparisons and parallels aside, the fact of the matter is that the one everlasting reason I keep coming back to Simon’s roles is because of how he breathed life into them--every well-chosen dialogue, every movement, every expression came together into creating unique characters each and every time.  No two of Simon’s characters are the same--not even the villains.  Even the villains who appeared on the same show were different; William Poole and Mel Barnes, despite being oneshot Bonanza characters, have notable differences.  You can feel some amount of sympathy for Poole (assuming you believe the idea that it was his girlfriend’s death that unhinged him), but Barnes gets no pity--nor deserves any.

Even the good guys have their differences.  Lieutenant Schrank and Tony Vincenzo are both men who are literally 500% done with the things (more specifically, the people) they have to put up with on a daily basis.  But while Schrank comes across as brash and biting, Tony is just a big teddy bear who’s way too nice for his own good.

Character actors play scores of roles in their careers; most of the time, their names are placed behind those of the starring roles, while, sometimes, they’re lucky enough to get a starring role.  Regardless of the role, their challenge is to make you remember them, whether they’re onscreen for just one scene or throughout the whole thing.  And Simon definitely succeeded; I never forgot that scheming Cowboy in the years between my first seeing him and then later discovering how wonderful Simon was.  And there won’t be a role of his that I’ll ever forget.

And that’s what will always keep me coming back.  It’s just a bit more obvious today, on what would’ve been his 98th birthday.

Happy Birthday, you wonderful man, you.

~Crystal Rose

Simon alongside other actors

I’ve been pondering on what my next topic should be. I at last decided that perhaps I would highlight some of my favorite performances Simon made alongside other actors I especially like and/or actors who were quite in the big time—as well as bemoaning the lack of interaction between them in some cases where they appear in the same production but had no scenes together.

As mentioned repeatedly by both of us but especially by Crystal Rose, there is Simon and Darren McGavin. It would be sacrilege not to bring up their amazing chemistry! Crystal speaks of it so well I doubt I could ever hope to do better, but I want to add my voice to how wonderful their time together is. The strength, or at least one of the strengths, of Kolchak: The Night Stalker is their characters’ interaction. There must have been a reason why Simon was called back to play Tony again and again after the initial Night Stalker movie, first in The Night Strangler sequel and then in the TV series proper. No one else could bring that character to life as incredibly as did Simon.

I also greatly enjoy seeing Simon appear alongside Steve Ihnat, in their guest-spot from The F.B.I. Steve was an amazing actor we lost even sooner then we lost Simon. I first became acquainted with him through his performance in The Outer Limits and from there began to deliberately seek out other things he appeared in. I was excited to discover that he and Simon had worked together! Their characters are close friends and their scene, described in detail in my post for The Maze episode, is a joy to watch. Steve and Simon have appeared together other times too, including in the rare series The Name of the Game. I wish I could locate that series, for that reason among others!

In The Outer Limits Simon has several scenes of interaction with Don Gordon. Aside from this episode, I have only seen Don in another venture of The Outer Limits and in the movie Bullitt, which also featured Simon. He is a good actor and I enjoy stumbling across him while watching things.

Bullitt brought Simon in contact with two very well-known actors: Steve McQueen and Robert Vaughn. As the boss of Steve McQueen’s character, Simon portrays a gruff and serious police captain of the highest level of integrity. He trusts Frank Bullitt and tries to allow him the leeway he needs to bring the bad guys to justice. And he refuses to give Robert Vaughn’s character the time of the day when he’s tempted to play politics. Simon only has a handful of scenes in the film, but they’re very memorable. Simon was deliberately chosen for the role by the director, and it’s very easy to see why.

In West Side Story Simon has a scene where he interacts with both Natalie Wood and Rita Moreno. It’s one of my favorites, where we see his character Lieutenant Schrank doing a better job of keeping himself composed than he does when dealing with the teen gangs.

I wish there had been more of him interacting with his apparent police partner, Sergeant Krupke (played by William Bramley). Actually, he only addresses one or two lines to Krupke throughout the film and they have two silent scenes together. Interestingly enough, I think their first silent scene says more about both of them than it might have if they had spoken. It’s only a few seconds long, set during the Tonight Quintet sequence. Krupke is driving, looking for the gangs to try to stop the impending rumble. Schrank is going for a cigarette, agitated. Krupke gives him a worried glance. Their obvious concern shows how deeply they care about the kids and don’t want them to get hurt, a very different image than what they usually seem to project when they’re interacting with said kids. It takes really good actors to make a silent scene come off so well.

One of my earliest encounters with Simon is in Susan Hayward’s intense vehicle I Want to Live! Playing real-life reporter Ed Montgomery, he documents the arrest and trial of Barbara Graham. Although initially he believes her to be guilty of the murder she’s accused of committing, he comes to feel that she is instead innocent and works feverishly to undo the damage his previous stories caused.

He has many scenes with Susan Hayward. Their relationship is shown starting with the antagonistic and gradually developing. His sincere regret comes out very well later, although Barbara does not want to discuss it. By the end of the film she seems to have warmed up to him. She leaves him a last letter, which he reads in the final scene, after her execution. He then trudges back to his car, pulling out his hearing aid so as not to hear any of the busy sounds around him. It’s a very powerful and poignant scene.

Another favorite actor of mine appears in this film, but regrettably, he and Simon do not interact. At least, not that I recall. He is Wesley Lau, probably best remembered as Lieutenant Andy Anderson on Perry Mason. His role in I Want to Live! is small but important, as the deadbeat husband of Barbara Graham. I would have loved to have seen Wesley and Simon play off of each other.

They do both appear in the Gunsmoke episode Miguel’s Daughter, but I can’t remember the extent of their interaction. Wesley plays, I believe, one of the guys harassing Miguel’s daughter. I don’t know if he’s the one Miguel kills or if he’s the other one. I watched that episode before Wesley really meant anything to me. I need to watch it again.

And, according to IMDB.com, they also appear together in the TV movie Crosscurrent. I’ve been trying to get hold of that for some time. I have no idea if they actually have any scenes together in it or not. According to TCM.com, Crosscurrent was a failed TV series pilot that became a TV movie instead. Were it to have been a series, Simon would have been a regular as the police captain. What a shame it didn’t work out. Then again, if it had, perhaps we wouldn’t have Kolchak: The Night Stalker, as Crosscurrent was made around the same time.

When it comes to main Perry Mason actors, the only other one I can affirm as having interaction with Simon is Raymond Burr. Sadly, they did not interact in either of Simon’s Perry episodes, but on Ironside they did. In the Puzzlelock episode, which I believe Crystal has spoken of, Simon plays a former policeman who is a friend of Ironside’s. He is also the villain of the episode. We have since seen one of his other two Ironside appearances, Love Me in December, in which he plays a reporter. This character initially comes across as a slimeball, but in his last scene his strong reaction to the truth behind the crime suggests that he really is a good person. I don’t recall that he interacted with Ironside in that episode. His other appearance, Lesson in Terror, we have not found yet.

Richard Anderson, Lieutenant Drumm from Perry, played the bad guy in The Night Strangler. He did not interact with Simon. They both appear in an episode of Burt Reynolds’ series Dan August. I have no idea whether Simon interacts with either Richard or Burt in that episode.

I most lament over the fact that Simon never interacted with William Talman, my other most favorite actor right now. They had no scenes together in the one Perry episode in which they both appeared. But I like to think that they met off-screen, on the set. I wonder what they thought of each other.

~Lucky Ladybug

Antagonists, Villains, and Anti-Heroes, Oh My!

As Lucky Ladybug mentioned in her previous entry, she and I happened upon a few archived news articles about Simon that helped us understand a bit more about him.  We already knew before that he was an extremely talented actor who could fit in flawlessly in any genre, taking on roles of different kinds.  We also already knew that he was a Renaissance man---an actor of the screen, of the stage, and also a musician, as well.  And we also knew that with a filmography covering decades of media and bringing to life several vibrant characters (featuring an impressive group of heroes, anti-heroes, and villains), there’s guaranteed to be something in Simon’s credits to please even the pickiest TV or movie watcher, if not absolutely enamor them altogether.

I have mentioned in previous posts about several of Simon’s complex characters, including ones that you couldn’t help but sympathize with a little bit, even if they were in the wrong.  I normally don’t think too much of villain or anti-hero characters, yet I found myself curious about William Poole from Bonanza, siding with and worrying for Frank Epstein in Hawaii Five-O, laughing at Nick from Follow That Dream, crying for Adam Howard in The Big Valley, pitying Howard Walters in Perry Mason, and being intrigued by Lt. Schrank in West Side Story. 

Even someone like Stawski from The Sand Pebbles---a man who, at times, was an utter brute and, if he were real, would’ve gotten a slap upside the face if he ever crossed paths with me---managed to have me captivated during the times he wasn’t making me cringe.  My feelings of intrigue and curiosity for these villains and/or anti-heroes puzzled me initially, especially in the case of Stawski, who was a character that, normally, I would’ve detested immensely at his worst.  But I found that I couldn’t hate him; he did have his good moments, plus there was the fact that I was able to see past the brutishness of the character and appreciate Simon’s acting ability.  I decided not to overthink and try to analyze why I didn’t hate Stawski, so I just shrugged it off.

After Lucky Ladybug and I made our article archive discovery, we were both thrilled to find an article where Simon described how he brought his antagonistic characters to life---that he tried to make them as multifaceted as possible and showcase their good points.  And, suddenly, the lightbulb went off in my head and I realized that was why I couldn’t find it in me to hate Stawski; Stawski did have his good moments, and that definitely factored into my accepting the character.

It’s why I couldn’t bring myself to hate Adam Howard in The Big Valley, either.  Every fiber of my being was ready to loathe Adam for some of the things he had done.  But then he just had to launch into a heartfelt speech that had me in tears, and I couldn’t hate him anymore than I could Stawski.

It’s why I sided with Frank Epstein in Hawaii Five-O, believing him when there was (initially) no evidence to otherwise, despite his short temper and sharp tongue, and why I was so worried when it became clear he was heading for a trap.

It’s also why I find myself intrigued by Lt. Schrank, whose abrasive words I would normally find repulsive and would want nothing more to do with him---but then it seems that his words are just a product of his own frustrations and that he might not even mean them.  It doesn’t excuse him, but it opens up another way to look at his character.

For a while, before I read that article, I was initially worried about myself because of my inability to detest these antagonistic characters that I normally would detest (Frank Epstein is not included among these---he was vindicated, as the Hawaii Five-O episode later revealed, which earned from me a sigh of relief and an “I knew it…”).  Was I so charmed by Simon that I was letting my personal standards slip in regards to some of those nastier characters?  I didn’t want to think so, and after reading that article, I realized that I hadn’t; it was Simon’s intent to give those antagonistic characters another side to them and make them difficult to loathe.  In the article, he referred to it as a “trick.”  Well, it looks as though I’ve fallen for that trick, and on more than one occasion, yet!

And you know what?  I don’t mind at all.

~Crystal Rose

The Flaws of Fictional Characters, and Why We Love Them

Try as we might to attain perfection in everything we do, the truth of the matter is that we have our flaws.  Perhaps this is why when we see flaws in fictional characters, it can end up making us pity or even adore them.  Simon Oakland has played countless characters during his time as an actor; no single character, whether good or bad, is without flaws.  These flaws are essential to their characterization.

For Simon’s villain characters, the flaws are pretty easy to see: Mel Barnes’ general nastiness, William Poole’s madness, Seth Tabor’s greed, Bolivar Jagger’s ingratitude, Mandee’s treacherous nature, Nick’s scheming and so on.  Of course, these flaws don’t make these characters endearing in anyway, but Nick’s sheer misfortune in how spectacularly his plans fail make him a laughable villain, at best.

Then there are the characters who are not quite villains, but aren’t exactly getting along with the main characters, either.  It is these characters’ flaws who actually do allow them to earn some pity, despite their standing.  Sancho Fernandez and Frank Epstein are both bitter, vengeful men, yet after the viewer realizes that their bitterness is not unfounded, the viewer nonetheless ends up siding with them, or, at the very least, giving them their pity.  Vern St. Cloud, for all his boisterousness and loud mouth, one can’t help but pity how his insistence to act like a tough guy sometimes get him into trouble.  And Lt. Schrank, despite saying a great deal of nasty things, earns a bit of pity after one takes a step back and realizes how jaded he has become after years of trying—and failing—to get rival street gangs to stop their fighting.

And yes, even the characters who are good guys all around have their flaws.  Alonzo Galezio’s flaw may be that he’s just too nice for his own good; he still longs and hopes that Donna Fuller will somehow see past his winemaking occupation and accept him for what he is, despite being insulted and verbally brought down by her.  And even after her mob wrecks his personal property and, in doing so, his potential livelihood, he can’t bring himself to press charges and instead tries to pick up the pieces and move on.  General Moore, despite being the tough-but-fair commanding officer of the Marines at Esprito Marcos, is revealed to put his instincts as a father first when he makes a somewhat unprofessional—albeit understandable—attempt to transfer his Navy nurse daughter to a safer place (this attempt fails upon her reminding him that he is obligated not to do so).  And Tony Vincenzo is an interesting mix of a temper to be reckoned with plus a person too nice for his own good; while a good portion of his dialogues with Carl Kolchak are often at a considerably loud volume, the truth of the matter is that he would do anything to help his sometimes-unfortunate employee, even at the risk of his own job security (as The Night Strangler movie showed).  And all of those threats to fire Carl?  All talk, and nothing more.  And Carl knows it.

It is important for fictional characters to have believable flaws; it is these flaws that make them more real and easier to relate to, particularly regarding the non-villain characters.  It makes them more human (even the characters who aren’t human, such as the Empyrian, who acknowledges his own mistakes after the humans he shanghais prove his mindset wrong).  And it’s another way that Simon, as an actor, reached out to us to remind us of what makes us human ourselves: the fact that we’re not perfect… and how that doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things, as long as we’re inherently good people.

~Crystal Rose

Captain Beechum and Lieutenant Schrank: Two Very Different Men

It never fails to amaze me, how Simon can slip so seemingly effortlessly into whatever character he portrays, both good guys and bad. I wonder exactly how he prepared for a role and how he determined the way he wanted to approach it.

I have divided his years of acting into several eras. In his early years on television and in the movies he played an incredible variety of characters, from innocents on the run to careworn policemen to military officials to horrid villains. Later on he took on many paternal and protective roles, mixed in with other villains.

A lot, but not all, of his younger characters have a certain impulsive nature about them. Even someone such as the cynical and bitter Lieutenant Schrank comes across as being younger than, say, Tony Vincenzo or General Moore. Schrank also seems younger in comparison with Lieutenant Tobin from Murder, Inc., whom Simon portrayed a year earlier.

That speech pattern likely has a lot to do with it. Schrank appears to be uncultured and blunt; he uses slang frequently and sometimes has terrible grammar. And there’s a definite sense that he couldn’t care less, even if he realizes he isn’t speaking proper English.

His frustration over the street gangs is another indication of some level of immaturity. Completely at his wit’s end after dealing with the gangs for so many years, and unable to stop their feuding, he blurts out whatever comes to him, including taunts and racial jeers. (Whether or not he is truly racist is a topic for another time, but I am still torn on it because of canon evidence that he is simply speaking in utter despair instead.) I suspect that at least part of the reason he repeatedly resorts to this behavior is because it’s the only way the gangs pay him any heed at all. It’s his method of fighting back when they completely disregard all of his warnings (since of course, despite his threats, he wouldn’t really beat up on teenage kids). Naturally, it only makes everything worse.

When he is able to control these outbursts he comes across, by contrast, as much more mature. The scene where he questions Maria is quite surprising in comparison to the confrontations with the Jets and the Sharks. He mutters a slightly odd (and amusing) rhetorical question when he comments, “Don’t you people keep aspirin around here?” But that is the strangest remark in the scene. Otherwise he displays a very levelheaded “just the facts” attitude. But, human as always, he says in response to Anita’s news that Maria isn’t feeling well, “Who is?” The inability to prevent more gang-related deaths has drained him.

Two years later Simon played Captain Beechum on The Twilight Zone, in a highly eerie and unsettling episode called The Thirty-Fathom Grave. Beechum particularly struck me in contrast to Lieutenant Schrank, due to the close chronological proximity in which Simon brought them each to life. He has a well-educated command of the English language and clearly shows his maturity and wisdom from his many years in the U.S. Navy. Of course, he is also not jaded, as poor Lieutenant Schrank is.

Beechum is stern, not wanting any foolish nonsense or lying down on the job taking place on his ship. But the instant he understands that the reason his chief boson is suddenly doing a terrible job is because of feeling unwell, his entire attitude changes. He shows sincere concern and wants to make sure that the man is receiving the proper care. Later, when it looks as though the boson is completely losing his mind, Beechum tries desperately to bring him back down to Earth.

He is bewildered by the odd hammering sound everyone on ship suddenly starts hearing and does all that he can to get to the bottom of the mystery. When it looks as though someone is alive in the submarine below, and has been for twenty years, he throws himself into the effort to try to rescue the poor soul. Eventually it becomes apparent that the truth is something more supernatural. Instead of dismissing that as utter nonsense, he instead tells the diver that he can tell that part of the story to his grandkids and pretend he made it up.

Like Schrank, Beechum has a store of sarcasm. We only see a small bit of it, but it’s gold. Upon first determining that what’s below them is likely a submarine, Beechum doesn’t feel that the information is good enough to explain the hammering. “Does it have two arms and a fist?” he exclaims.

He is deeply affected by the tragedies that unfold over the course of the episode. By the final scene he is standing alone, looking out at the ocean where Chief Bell ultimately jumped after Beechum failed to make him listen to reason. Beechum bids the tortured man to rest in peace, that it took him years to die after the horrors he suffered during World War II and that he deserves a peaceful end now.

I love both characters dearly. Lieutenant Schrank is one whom I’ve often written about and tried to show in a kind light. I’ve never written for Beechum, but he is outstanding as well. They have core differences in their personalities and their approaches, yet they do have something in common. At heart they’re both good men. And Simon played them both expertly, allowing the viewer to become lost in their adventures and see them as real.

~Lucky Ladybug