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

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

Still Relevant in the 21st Century: Another Appealing Aspect of Simon Oakland's Characters

One of the intriguing elements to Simon Oakland’s characters is how they are still relevant here in the 21st century.  Both the good and the malevolent characters could easily find a place in the modern world, even the ones from period pieces.  The realization came to me when I was musing over how, after a few tweaks, it could be possible to apply the translated lyrics of “Dastaan-e Om Shanti Om” (from the 2007 Bollywood/Hindi movie Om Shanti Om) to the story of William Poole from the “Thunder Man” episode of Bonanza (for it is, as the song says, “A story of broken dreams” for everyone involved).  The fact that that a song from a movie from 2007 could apply to characters in a 1963 episode of a TV show set in the Old West speaks volumes to the relevancy of the characters and the story.  And it isn’t just here…

Take the case of the Empryian, from The Outer Limits episode “Second Chance.”  Is the Empyiran’s view on humans any less applicable in 2011 than it was in 1964?  Not at all; for all we complain about our world and our lives, we still are very reluctant to leave our comfort zones, as the Empyrian so glibly stated. 

And what of Lieutenant Schrank and his jaded view on the direction the youths of our world seem to be taking?  A look at any local news station will tell you that West Side Stories still happen worldwide.  Suddenly, Schrank’s cynicism seems more and more understandable.

Of course, it isn’t just the cruel or cynical characters that are applicable to our modern age; Simon’s nicer characters are also relevant.  A character like Jim Nation, from the “Overland Express” episode of Gunsmoke is a reminder that there are some people who are good deep down in spite of initial appearances, and if you give them the benefit of the doubt, they’ll come through for you when you need them most.

Also included in the list of relevant characters are those characters who are nothing but good and loveable, like Tony Vincenzo—gruff on the outside, but with a caring heart of gold on the inside.  Don’t we all know a Tony Vincenzo somewhere in our lives—someone who, despite any and all disagreements they may have with us, can’t help but be concerned for our problems to the extent that they start worrying for us, despite the headaches?  Everything about Tony is believable: his attempts to resist the temptation of junk food in favor of healthier practices like yoga (and, in addition, his failure at both), his bark being worse than his bite, and the sheer pity and sympathy he has for his unfortunate employee and friend, Carl Kolchak, no matter what troubles he brings upon him.

And, sometimes, it’s not just what the characters represent that is still relevant to our time; sometimes, the characters themselves have a place in our world.  Tony Vincenzo is the best example of this yet again; the Kolchak saga continues on in the form of Moonstone’s comics, which are not only still being published, but take place in the present day.  Tony and Carl don’t look or feel out of place at all among the tech age we live in; they continue on with their bantering like they always did.

Perhaps it was Simon’s ability to bring to life characters that are still relevant to the 21st century that ended up being one of the many contributing factors as to why a modern-day young lady ended up being so enamored by the characters—and the man behind them.  Though the man may be gone, the characters live on.  And perhaps, a hundred years from now, they’ll still be just as relevant.

~Crystal Rose