There are always some hotly contested races in any awards season. This year, pound for pound, the tightest Emmy race may well be the Best Supporting Actor-Drama Category. Actually, Supporting Actor-Comedy is also really tough…and Best Actress-Comedy….and Best Actor-Drama….Anyhow, we’re trying to focus here….

Best Supporting Actor-Drama has left the voters with five very tough competitors. To refresh your memory, they are:

William Shatner, “Boston Legal,” ABC
Ted Danson, “Damages,” FX
Zeljko Ivanek, “Damages,” FX
Michael Emerson, “Lost,” ABC
John Slattery, “Mad Men,” AMC

Prognosticating on a thing like this is a little weird. But let’s take a look at what each man has going in his favor and maybe against him. Let the overanalysis begin!

Looking at Mr. Shatner first, one can only say “Denny Crane”. This guy keeps getting nominated, and while some thing all the praise lavished on him, colleague James Spader, and the show in general, is overkill, especially at this late date, you can’t help but watch the guy and be impressed. Shatner is playing a larger-than-life guy on the back nine, or even back five, of his career - and maybe his life. Yes, he is often more comical than dramatic, but he has his moments, and he can be very, very compelling. Denny Crane fills a room. And there’s a lot of weird stuff on the show, but there’s also a good discussion every now and again of civil liberties and the legal system, conservative vs liberal views, and Shatner gets a piece of that action. He also has a lot of those nice moments on the balcony with Spader. So, one thing Shatner has going for him is a character who people still seem to enjoy. Another thing -some great material. A third thing - name recognition and past-winner prestige.

Now what’s maybe not in his favor, besides the toughness of the category, is that we have seen Denny Crane for a number of years already: does he have the juice to take on these fresher characters? Second, while we havent seen the clip he provided for the voters to consider, there is a lot more of a comic vibe to this character overall and maybe that will effect voters even if it probably shouldn’t.

Next on the list is Ted Danson of Damages. Danson’s no Emmy newbie. We’d make a pun about everybody knowing his name, but…. no. Danson, best known as Sam Malone from Cheers, impressed people with his dramatic turn on the dark drama Damages this season. That’s definitely gotten him some buzz- the return to TV in such a different role. But the performance itself is really quite something- is there a scarier sociopath in the realistic mold than Arthur Frobisher? Danson’s performance was big, but filled with little things that make it also very menacing and never over-the-top. The show Damages has been buzzy, so that may also help Danson’s case.

But what may not help is the fact that two guys from the same show were nominated: he and Zeljko Ivanek This could result in some kind of cancellation. Danson, Ivanek, Michael Emerson and John Slattery also maybe have to contend with the issue of being on serialized shows where some of the impact of one episode is directly related to whether or not the viewer has seen previous episodes.

Speaking of Mr. Ivanek, fans of shows like Homicide and Oz and Broadway fans know one thing working for the Damages star is that, while the average viewer may know his name (and almost certainly won’t know how to pronounce his name…) he is a very respected actor. He will not be some question mark to the Emmy voters. In fact, he may be one of those guys who they feel is ‘due.‘ Throw in the fact the show, again, was hot this season as another thing in his favor. Most of all though, you gotta look at his sad, heartbreaking performance as tortured lawyer Ray Fiske. Just some of the best acting this season. We may have selected ‘We Are Not Animals’ as his most gripping episode rather than ‘I Hate These People’….but the end of the former didn’t exactly end with the same bang….Sorry, we had to say it.

Ivanek may, like Danson, deal with the cancel-out factor; or people may simply not know whether to go with the show’s creepy bad guy or emotionally screwed up bad-ish guy and go for a third option.

You can’t really call Michael Emerson a ‘third option,’ as much as a major contender for this award. While some of our co-writers here at nzone are loyal Lost viewers, we writing this piece are not. And we still know Ben is one evil SOB mastermind of island chaos and destruction. If Forbisher of Damages is the scariest realistic guy this side of The Wire, than Emerson’s Ben is the scariest fantasy world guy this side of reality. We wanted him dead! Those eyes…how do you get eyes to be all crazy like that? Add to the equation Lost was cheered for a resurgent season this year and Ben had a big role in the action. These two things are in Emerson’s plus column, too. Lost is also the most ratings-popular of the series nominated

In Emerson’s minus column may be the fact that Lost may have lost some of the earlier seasons’ critical love. You’ll note he’s the only one in the ensemble nominated - no Terry O’Quinn repeat, for example, and the series itself isn’t up for best drama. It’s possible that voters may want to go with the cool kids and Lost, like the even older Boston Legal, doesn’t make the cut (though, oddly, Legal was nominated for Best Drama….)

And that leaves John Slattery. Slattery, like Ivanek, is a well-known character actor whom many voters will know of and who some may feel is ‘due’for some Emmy recognition. He is also on the hottest show of the season - likely Emmy winner for best drama, Mad Men. These are three things in his favor. But, like all the men in this category, his outstanding performance on his show is his greatest strength - and what makes this category so dang tough. We are not regular Mad Men watchers, but what we really noticed about Slattery this summer is how quickly he gets across his ad boss character- the guy says just a few words and we know who he is. Slattery’s definitely got a claim to a place on this list.

What may work against him is that show is maybe known more for its lead performance by Jon Hamm. Maybe the Emmys will want to spread some love to Damages, a show whose quality was arguably very dependent on its acting, particulary by these two men and Glenn Close.

A recent article had two “experts” saying Ivanek and Emerson are the most likely choices to win. A few months ago, Danson would have probably been favored over Ivanek, who many thought wouldn’t get a nomination even. In our opinion, it’s too hard to pick one but if we had to, we do feel there was something extra special in those two Damages performances this year, and while the characters may come back in some capacity, Art and Ray , we bet, will only return in their full glory on the season 1 DVD. So maybe this is their year. No disrespect to Slattery, Emerson, or Shatner, who were also excellent, but if it were up to us, Ivanek or (and) Danson would bring home the 2008 award. Slattery will have next year; Emerson may too, as we know Ben will be back (whether he brings the island with him or not is a whole other story.) And there’s one more year for Shatner, because if history teaches us anything its that the Emmys will always make room for Denny Crane.

-NZONE TV EDITORS

Here’s a clip from one of the season’s most buzzed-about shows, JJ Abrams’ Fringe, premiering 9-9 at 8PM on FOX.

(A Forest Music Fringe video from FOX)

by Emmy Watcher

House is the kind of show that really makes you wish Fox could have cursing on it, but at the same time, you’re sort of intrigued by how well its title character can express his misanthropy without dropping F-bombs or some of the other more notable letter bombs. House is also the kind of show that makes you realize how central a central character can be. The series underwent some bigtime cast change-arounds this year, and while the changes were sometimes effective and interesting, and while the supporting players had some great scenes, it also kind of became apparent that as long as House is House, the rest of the people around him are, as they say, secondary to the plot.

But maybe right off the bat while discussing this show, we should give a kudos to the supporting cast and hash around the changes that were made this season. First, there are the three underlings, or ducklings, that were sent packing a year ago but came back on duty in cleverly inserted if extremely truncated roles. Personally, I think two of the ducks had topped out; and seeing them less kind of made them stronger characters to me. Jesse Spencer’s Dr. Chase as a sometimes-involved surgeon and Jennifer Morrison’s Dr. Cameron as the sometimes involved ER doc both professionally progressed outside of House’s range; they seemed like real doctors and not people dodging his emotional bullets. Dr. Foreman (Omar Epps) was definitely the right choice to keep more front and center. Cameron may have tried to get House to be nice, and Chase may have been less vulnerable to House’s attacks, but Foreman was the best foil. Epps is downright stalwart as Foreman and I hope he stays around this coming season.

Then there are the newbies or “got screwed-bies” who tried out for House’s team over the course of the season (one got a ton more messed with than the rest in the end….) I won’t go through them all, but they were interesting - some even more than the three who got the spots on the regular cast. Still, Kal Penn, as a guy only slightly more concerned with life than the Kumar character, Oliva Wilde, as the compasionate and troubled Thirteen, who was only sort of hired for her looks (and by hired, we mean by Fox) and “Oh, that guy” Peter Jacobson as Taub, are all good actors. The characters, eh, could take or leave them.

There was also Anne Dudek who - um, spoiler alert - as Amber, aka Cutthroat Bitch (see what I mean about the cursing…it’s just fun…) managed to go from first class irritant to being sympathetic enough as Wilson’s girlfriend that the scene where she saw her death coming and then kicked it was a punch to the gut for many a teary eyed fan.

And that brings us to the FOH, friends of Houe - Wilson (Robert Sean Leonard) and Cuddy (Lisa Edelstein). As per usual, the season had its share of Wilson and Cuddy dealing with House’s messing around, but at the end, with Amber’s death, Wilson’s friendship with House seemed all but doomed and Cuddy seemed left to pick up the pieces this time. Some were surprised Leonard didn’t get an Emmy nomination for his work (particularly in these episodes) This is a legitimate question until you see how tough the supporting actor/drama category is. I can’t say any of those guys aren’t deserving. Okay, William Shatner, but, otherwise, the category is jam packed, so, sorry guy, you win some you lose some; go home and hug your Tony Award.

And that leaves us with the two things that were Emmy nominated: lead actor Hugh Laurie and the show itself. House is a good show. It deserves to be in contention with other network series like Lost and Boston Legal. The formula mysteries of House are often entertaining, and certainly fans have been entertained by the personal sidebars. But the flipside of that is that both the formula and the sidebars can get redundant and even a little boring. (Taub cheated on his wife. Do we really care? And I say this as a Jacobson fan….)

This perhaps gets back to my original point which is that House is the center of the show, and without his distinct and acerbic personality, the show is a three-legged table, or maybe even a two-legged table….wait, no, that doesn’t work…Three legged table. That isn’t to say that House’s personality can’t get a little “Yeah, he’s a jerk, we get it” too- but this season, especially towards the end, seemed to take him into new territory. And the ways he goes about finding his medical answers are usually the most interesting parts of the medical mysteries. He has no bedside manner and the show’s writers are usually inventive about expressing this fact. Add in that Hugh Laurie is a fantastic actor who always brings the character home, grumpy or guilty, mad or menacing. No doubt a deserving Emmy nominee. Will he win? No, but, he can take out all his angst in his role this coming season. Of course, that would be easier if they really let him swear.

BY FASHION CRIME WATCHER

Project Runway is in its, I dunno, fifth season now, or something, and, along with spawning way too many offspring , it’s also beginning to show its age. It’s still “in” as opposed to “out”, but it’s beginning to show some signs of wear and tear.

I guess I find the show a little less compelling this season because I’ve seen it before: bring in a bunch of youngish people, some campy, some quirky, some overly self-assured, watch them follow weekly challenges using weird materials or untraditional models or something; have one designer come up with something that the average viewer won’t “get” and then watch him or her win for the week; have one person create something that clearly sucks and watch him or her get the German-language kiss off from Klum. Plus, all that sewing. The formula of PR can be a little more than what the payoff merits.

Of course there are things that still make it enjoyable- everybody’s favorite Merlin, Tim Gunn; cool guest judges, interesting challenges. But, overall, it’s not exactly “TV forward”.

There are a few things they could do to freshen things up. The first thing would be to get rid of all the preamble at the start of each runway session. I mean, Heidi, for the love of Gucci, stop introducing Nina Garcia and Michael Korrs like we don’t know who they are or what they do for a living! Second, maybe experiment as some other (lesser) shows do with having a mini-challenge and a big challenge some episodes - not all episodes - but some episodes. Get them out and about more. And in this context, maybe have them experiment with other sides of the industry- like dealing with the business angle or go on a photo shoot or teach a skill or….who knows. But there has to be more than to being a design superstar than just following orders and expressing your “point of view.”

And there’s another thing. Would someone please explain to us non-designers what in the Hello Kitty Sleeper Pajamas “point of view” even means. How is liking leather a point of view? Point of view on what- how people should dress? The meaning of life? What? For a show that is supposed to give insight into how designers work, PR still has me feeling clueless sometimes.

I still watch Project Runway, because I like the kooky and cool creations the designers come up with. But there’s room for some re-design here. Maybe when the show moves to its new home on Lifetime, or wherever it’s going, they will do some alterations.

Mitch Hedberg: “Do You Believe in Gosh?”

The first album of new Mitch Hedberg material since his untimely death in 2005 is released on September 9th. Hedberg was an up-and-coming comic genius, dealing in absurd one-liners and observational humor, along the lines of Steven Wright, but in a way all his own. The new CD, recorded months before his death, is a great example of his style, with lines such as “Is a hippopotamus a hippopotamus or just a really cool opotamus”?

I first saw Hedberg on television in 1999 (his first TV appearance I believe), and he definitely stood out from the crowd of comedians. His rapid fire succession of jokes ran the gamut and his observations were fresh and new, and one wonders why these observations had never been joked about before.

On the CD, Hedberg’s abrupt style of joke delivery is on display, as well as his willingness to acknowledge (on many occasions) that a joke bombed. “I’m making 50 percent of the door today, and 50 percent of the door tomorrow,” he says. “So after that, I will have a door. I’m planning to get a screen door.”

He even deconstructs stand-up comedy itself, wondering why the word “Improv” is at so many clubs, and whybrick walls are behind comedians at many clubs (he imagines that the Big Bad Wolf bombed a few times and huffed and puffed the background of hay).

There was only one Mitch Hedberg. And thankfully with this new CD, we have one more chance to hear him perform. Grade: A-

(Editor’s Note: As the Emmys approach, nzone tv will be spotlighting nominated actors and shows….)

Monk, the hit USA summer series about a genius detective with OCD, a whole slate of phobias, and in general a quirky personality (to say the least) is heading towards its 100th episode this season. The series stars Tony Shalhoub who is nominated for the sixth time as best actor in a comedy series. Shalhoub has three wins. He also executive produces the show.

Monk, of course, is the story of Adrian Monk, a great SFPD detective, with an unbeatable eye for detail who used to put way killers til his wife Trudy’s murder at the hands of a car bomber (who, the myth continues, remains at large…) sent the already borderline detective over the deep end. In the course of the last six seasons, we’ve seen Monk’s OCD and phobias haunt him while his meticulous-ity helps him in his capacity as an SFPD consultant detective. Flanked by his trusty girl Friday, single mom Natalie (Traylor Howard) , gruff Capt. Stottlemeyer (Ted Levine) and basically air-headed Lt. Disher (Jason Gray-Stanford), Monk solves murder after murder by picking up things everyone else misses and piecing together the crime in the show’s regular “Here’s how he did it…” black and white flashback scene.

Monk has gotten some flack the last few years for being too redundant. Sort of like “Yeah, he counts stuff and doesn’t like germs, we get it.” Truthfully, Monk’s psychological issues, plus other Monkisms like self-absorption, naiveté, and almost total lack of progress towards mental health , are only funny and interesting for so long before they become either pitiable or tedious. Sometimes the pitiable part can work, because the show is more dramedy than out and out comedy. But eventually, even Shalhoub’s expert portrayal, which among other things well physicalizes how trapped Monk is by his own mind, can’t make stuff we’ve seen a hundred times (almost literally) have the same punch. This isn’t to say Monk has stunk. I think the last two seasons have been among the best. The mysteries - and often we know who did it, just not how - are usually fun to watch unravel, the chemistry between the foursome of the cast is great, and the show, despite the murder element, is a good break from the grim, grizzly murder shows that populate primetime tv. It’s a fun show, entertaining, and a good combo platter with its night-mate, Psych. As long as the stories go on and the characters go on, the show can go on and still be good.

The key to keeping the show effective and fresh, is also that this OCD detective show gives us a balance between Monk’s quirks remaining quirky and, to an extent, debilitating, while also giving diehard fans just a litle bit of progress. The recent episode where he dealt with a crush on a woman - the first since Trudy- was cute and showed progress from earlier episodes a few years ago, where he almost adopted a kid or where he went on a date (complete with index cards with Trudy-facts on them…) It was a nice episode. Monk also bought a house earlier, as a way to deflect his pain over losing his trusted shrink (played by the late Stanley Kamel.) And they added a new symptom: for the first time, Monk out and out hallucinated, picturing his new shrink (Emmy-winner Hector Elizondo) on a navy submarine with him during a case.

Shalhoub is of course the lynch pin to the whole shebang. There’s no Monk, after all, without Monk. Shalhoub is probably not the Emmy frontrunner this year- well, he’s not the frontrunner this year- but just because he’s been around a while doesn’t mean his performance have gotten any less good. He is still aces at giving us a guy who is complex: the embodiment of anxiety and closed-off-ness, but still sometimes childlike in what he finds amusing, lost, but also capable of delivering tough guy “gotchas.” Shalhoub is a deserving nominee.

And as comedy characters go, Monk may seem to stand out, because he’s not on a sitcom. But I think a comparison may be made between Monk and The Office’s Michael Scott. Both are social outcasts. Both are aware to an extent that they’re outcasts, but also, lack awareness, as Steve Carell has pointed out about Michael, to a degree it’s kind of sad. Both are lonely and long to fit in. And both men need their work in order to have any contact with the outside world, or any sense of self. Watch the episode Mr. Monk Goes To The Office and tell me Monk wouldn’t love Dunder Mifflin. In fact, Angela Kinsey is scheduled to appear in episode 100. Uh-oh, does Monk really want to get into that Dwight-Andy mess?

Monk was created by Andy Monk’s 100th episode airs Sept 5th . See USAnetwork.com for more info.

n:zone is giving you the chance to win a DVD copy of My Faraway Bride, a western spin on Bollywood. A cross-cultural romantic comedy based on a true story..

Sex and the City’s Jason Lewis plays Alex who meets and romances Indian beauty Reena (Kashmera Shah) while she is vacationing in California. Torn by her blossoming feelings for Alex and her Indian family values and obligations, Reena returns home without saying goodbye. Unable to get her out of his mind, Alex decides to follow her to India and win her back. Trouble is, Alex couldn’t be more out of his element on the sub-continent. In addition, Reena has kept something very important secret—she’s the Julia Roberts of India! With the help of a rambunctious rickshaw driver and some of Reena’s friends, Alex just might have a chance at winning her back.

“Based on two true stories” - The film was written by Brad Listermann, Kashmera Shah with Richard Martini. Brad Listermann wrote the story based on his experiences in the Bollywood film industry after marrying Indian film star, Kashmira Shah (Kashmera). Richard Martini once went to India armed only with a name of an Indian girl hoping to meet this lost flame once again. Richard’s experiences are also peppered into the story of Alex, the film’s main character.

My Faraway Bride will be available on DVD August 19th, 2008.

YOU CAN WIN

1 lucky n:zone reader will win a DVD copy of My Faraway Bride.

Sweepstakes closes September 1, 2008.

SWEEPSTAKES ENTRY FORM

Please make sure you have read the Terms & Conditions.

You may only enter each sweepstakes once per day. Multiple entries are invalidated. At this time, sweepstakes are limited to our readers in the USA & Canada.

All fields must be completed on this form. Please click on “Send Email” to submit your entry.

If you are experiencing any problems with entering the sweepstakes, please contact us and we will help you as soon as we can.

BY CRIME WATCHER

(Note: from here on til Emmy time, nzone TV will spotlight Emmy nominees and the shows they’re on.)

It’s hard to believe how fast summer’s flown. One of the many downsides: the approaching season end of The Closer, TNT’s cool crime drama starring Emmy nominee Kyra Sedgwick. In its fourth season, The Closer has shaken off the hokey-ness of its Christmas special and delivered a summer of solid episodes of enjoyable character-and-plot driven formula.

The Closer stars Sedgwick as Brenda Leigh Johnson, an Atlanta transplant hired by her ex-lover (of all people, and played by JK Simmons) to head the LAPD’s Priority Homicide Squad. While season 1 dealt with Brenda earning the loyalty of her polygot team, the focus throughout the series’ run has been on her ability to close cases by getting confessions often in unorthodox manners.

Along with the usually interesting if not always unpredictable cases, Brenda also has a variety of personal dealings (including some misfires like last season’s bizarre premature menopause plotline…) This summer for example, one episode threw a speedbump up along the usually smooth relationship path of Brenda and Jon Tenney’s FBI agent Fritz Howard as the two faced off over a witness.

Along with her personal life, Brenda’s also managing a squad that remains an ecclectic mix of stubborn old schoolers like Flynn and Provenza (Anthony Denison and GW Bailey, respectively) and other assorted personalities - like the recently broken-up couple of Gabriel and Daniels (Corey Reynolds and Gina Ravera…and did we know Daniels’ first name was Irene before this season?). The Closer boasts one of the most racially diverse casts in drama these days and also one of the most likable. The series continues to give every supporting character just enough to do to keep him or her viable. The chemistry of the ensemble is also great.

That being said, Sedgwick is the focal point of the show. As Brenda Johnson, Sedgwick is definitely Emmy-worthy. Her accent may bug some, but you sort of get used to it. She is also a good mix of comic and tough as the story of the week dictates. There’s a complexity to the character that the nature of the show’s mysteries and humor sometimes belies and Sedgwick always brings it home with a look, a gesture, a pause. Brenda Johnson isn’t the mess that Grace Hardanko (Holly Hunter) is on Saving Grace or the tough powerhouse of Patty Hewes (Glenn Close) on Damages. But the character shouldn’t be dismissed as lightweight, not with Sedgwick in there every episode, closing the deal.

The Closer airs at 9PM on TNT
http://www.tnt.tv/series/closer/

BY HENRY HANKS

THE SIMPSONS:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/15683/the-simpsons-smoke-on-the-daughter#s-p1-so-i0
The Simpsons: “Smoke on the Daughter” (3/30/08) - One of the better episodes of the season starts with a spot-on spoof of Harry Potter-mania. Then Marge lives vicariously through Lisa as she takes ballet class, but Homer tries to keep her second-hand smoke addiction under wraps. Grade: A-

http://www.hulu.com/watch/19698/the-simpsons-mona-leaves-a#s-p1-so-i0
“Mona Leaves-A” (5/11/08) - A heartfelt goodbye to Homer’s mother (played, as always, by Glenn Close) as she passes away. Grade: B

“All About Lisa” (5/18/08) - Great spoof of “All About Eve” as Lisa gets involved in “the business of show” assisting Krusty. Grade: B+

KING OF THE HILL

http://www.hulu.com/watch/18963/king-of-the-hill-cops-and-robert#s-p1-so-i0
King of the Hill: “Cops and Robert” (5/4/08) - Hank accidentally takes a man’s wallet and unfortunately for him, the man is also insane. Meanwhile, Bobby is deputized by the school’s police officer (Fred Willard, brilliant as usual). Grade: B+

http://www.hulu.com/watch/19700/king-of-the-hill-it-came-from-the-garage#s-p1-so-i0
“It Came from the Garage” (5/11/08) - Hank confronts his fear of bats while constructing a boat with his son for an annual competition. Grade: C+

http://www.hulu.com/watch/20357/king-of-the-hill-life-a-losers-manual#s-p1-so-i0
“Life: A Loser’s Manual” (5/18/08) - We finally meet Luanne’s dad, Hoyt, who has been in jail this whole time (something they have always lied about to Luanne). Hoyt is soon caught committing another crime and tries to get Lucky to take the fall. Grade: B

AMERICAN DAD:

American Dad: “Spring Break-Up” (5/18/08) - After another fight with Stan, Francine visits her parents while Roger brings spring break to the family’s backyard. Stan then becomes “spring break buddies” with a coed, while Steve tries to hook up with Carmen Selectra. Stan has to decide between Francine or living the “spring break life” which is not all it’s cracked up to be. Grade: B-

That’s a wrap! See you next season (and my thoughts on the Emmys before that)!

Melissa Leo Delivers Best Performance of the Year as Desperate Single Mother in Gritty Frozen River

By Lee Shoquist

Two desperate women hatch a plan to smuggle undocumented immigrants across the Canadian border in Frozen River, the gritty Sundance winner featuring the year’s best female performance from Melissa Leo as a downtrodden rural mother determined to provide a better life for her kids.

Abandoned by an alcoholic husband, suddenly single Ray Eddy has two sons to provide for, a broken-down trailer and a dead-end job at an upstate New York dollar store. So poor that the family dinner consists of popcorn and Tang, tough Ray scrapes for a down payment on a new double-wide trailer, but cries in private when no one can see.

Melissa Leo, a character actress of stunning focus and grit, has carved a career out of hardscrabble characters including a long-suffering wife in 21 Grams and popular detective Kay Howard in TV’s Homicide.

To say that Leo digs into Frozen River’s desperate single mother without means is an understatement. In a career high performance, she is remarkably tough and moving without a trace of sentiment.

This is acting without acting, and Leo immediately grabs us, often in close-up, emotionally agile, a constant sense of realism and hard-won life experience informing her performance with a deep inner life. Disillusionment, despair and dreams are all on Leo’s face in every frame of Courtney Hunt’s unblinking film, creating an indelible, distinctly American portrait of a parent committed to doing right by her children.

I caught up with the actress recently to talk about Frozen River’s fascinating anti-heroine and the challenges facing the thirty-year veteran of character roles, still looking for the next job while delivering the dramatic goods Hollywood actresses can’t fathom.

Lee Shoquist: Frozen River sort of redefines the term bleak.

Melissa Leo: No!

LS: You didn’t think so? Bleak setting maybe, and circumstances?

ML: Yes, bleak circumstances.

LS: But you did not quite see it that way.

ML: No, bleak says to me an emptiness, and her life is anything but empty. She’s got a basket full of trouble, but I don’t know if that would be bleak.

LS: Does she see it as trouble?

ML: I think that is part of it too and why I hesitated at that description. Because from her vantage point, it is all she has ever known. It is just called life. And I think that she rides that roller coaster that you do when you don’t have a lot. I think that she had a meaningful relationship with someone who had troubles, and she has these two kids by him that she clearly adores in an odd way. And when you have kids and you need to feed them, that is all you have got on your mind.

I remember learning years ago that depression—maybe it is bleak—is not a blankness of mind that the behavior of the depressed might indicate. It is actually that the frontal lobe has become far too active and is screwing you up. So maybe she is skirting a line of depression. There is all this stuff she is trying to figure out all in one moment. I guess it is bleak. I guess it is Melissa and not Ray Eddy that is responding to bleak, because I had so much fun shooting it!

LS: You have an intensity level that always indicates this fascinating inner life. Very few actors today can match that commitment when they are on camera.

ML: That’s the job description. That’s what I always heard. You use your whole instrument. When my face is on camera, my toes are still working. It’s my pleasure and what I do. Sitting here and presenting “me” is a far… I was thinking about it last night flying in to Chicago: “I have no script. I have no costume. I’m just going to…!” I am thrilled to have this opportunity to promote the film. That thing of doing the work and getting you to feel is my pleasure to do!

LS: You also have a certain quality that enables us to we feel we immediately know and empathize with you.

ML: What a nice compliment!

LS: I felt like that during 21 Grams in the scene where you walk out and look at the front of the truck. Same thing here in the opening scene of this movie, where you are sitting and crying, which is something Ray does only privately.

ML: In many ways she is not unlike Mary Ann in 21 Grams. Who could stick with that guy Jack, that Benicio del Toro played?

LS: They say there is always a woman for every man. Even guys in prison have women lining up.

ML: There is someone. And I think for many, many years Ray stood by her man. And it happens in dysfunctional relationships, until finally the enabler is, “enough is enough.”

LS: It’s interesting that Ray is a different person when she alone than when she is with her kids.

ML: Yes. That happens when you have struggles and children, especially with a small child in the house. If it were only Ray and her fifteen-year-old boy, she probably would rely on him more. But the little boy reminds her that they are children, and that is a time in your life that you never get back. You are an adult for a long, long time and can re-invent your life ten times if you want to, but your childhood you can never get back. It completely informs the rest of your existence.

So Ray is enough of a mom, that I assume has come from carrying, birthing and nurturing infants. I am an unpractical woman in a lot of ways and a bit of a mess, and my sons taught me how to be a grown-up. And maybe that holds true also for Ray. The older boy already knows how desperate the circumstances are. He is ready to quit school and go get a job. She has got that job at the dollar store, but her main job is raising those kids. She takes it very seriously.

A vast majority of Ray is from Courtney Hunt’s script and direction. It was clear the way that Ray needed to be set up. She didn’t let me be bigger than I needed to be, and kept pulling me down and getting my feet on the ground. I often see myself in things and think, “Why didn’t they hold me back?”

LS: Really? I always think of you as realism to the extreme.

ML: It’s real. I don’t know that I am capable of doing that false acting thing because it just means too much to me. When I get big, it is real, but it just doesn’t work as well for the story. Ray’s containment I think makes her more accessible to the audience, a simplicity that invites people in.

LS: There are so many struggles going on right now economically in this recession that Frozen River feels like a valuable document of a family without options. Someone said to me recently that they grew up dirt poor, but they never knew it. Ray also tries to make everything seem OK for her sons.

ML: Yes, I think so. I think the older boy knows what is going on in the house, and the little boy has no idea. And he wants his Christmas present. I think the family has worked very hard to protect the boy from the harsher realities. You grow up at some point and see it all. I think that poignancy of the character and Lila, Misty Upham’s character as well, in the world today, is that they are simple, real people with real problems and real solutions they come upon too. So it is satisfying. Right or wrong? It’s not a movie about whether it is right or wrong.

LS: It is not a film about immigration or social issues.

ML: No, it is just a backdrop to what is happening in the story. There is enough there to show that she is sort of hesitating at the moral line she would rather not cross.

LS: And she always has a gun within arm’s length, as if she is projecting this, “No one messes with me” vibe!

ML: That is broadly across the United States as well! We do have the right to bear arms and myself, I would not own a gun, but plenty of Americans do.

LS: We grew up with a gun cabinet in the house and when it was deer season, they got used.

ML: You grew up here?

LS: In Michigan.

ML: Ah, I lived out in Oklahoma during my teenaged years and everybody had guns. I learned to shoot a gun out in the field, shooting the cans.

LS: This is a very American story that feels very current and relevant.

ML: It is an American story. It is a Native American story. And it is utterly fascinating. We do have Native Americans living in this country and they have real lives. Misty Upham, a Native American actress, is just playing the role of a person. She is not wandering around in some heroic role, looking at the sky or the wheat fields. It is not the heroic stoicism. She is just a gal with strengths and weaknesses. It is very groundbreaking.

LS: At several points in the film I was very surprised by Ray’s decisions. There is a scene with a bag thrown out the window of the car. And then there is another scene in the forest later. I had no idea what she was going to do, and you kept me guessing.

ML: I think that Ray Eddy is a lot of things, but not particularly calculating. She is going by the seat of her pants, and she makes snap decisions and that is what has kept her alive and her kids fed, and also what has gotten her into trouble as well.

LS: Which also relates to the husband as well when her son confronts her.

ML: Exactly. That is the way she has always lived, and it is a very clever writing device to get that constantly expanding adventure. I come at the character from a place that feels grounded. The script is brilliant and it was a great role. The crew all showed up to work for nothing because the story was so powerful.

LS: Does it frustrate you that a Frozen River is once in a great while? Here we are over halfway through the year and Frozen River and The Visitor are our two great American movies.

ML: Oh, I loved The Visitor! I don’t see anything, but I know Richard Jenkins very well. He is beyond great. What a relief to see him be the romantic lead. That film too takes these turns that you would just never- where it starts, you have no idea where it is going.

LS: You only get that once in awhile. It has to be depressing.

ML: It is a frustrating thing. But I think in the end that film is an extraordinarily young art. I guess computer-generated art is younger, but I don’t know if that has found its way quite into art yet. But film is clearly an established art form and like with any other, there are so many things film can be.

There is perfectly valid entertainment. And then there is deeper entertainment that is the genesis of theater, with theater being the genesis of film. It has to do with ancient healing art where human beings need to see ourselves reflected back like we did around a circle and a campfire with storytellers. That is how we learn our lessons, see ourselves and try to be better human beings. That is really and truly what the art is that I do.

So yes, every once in a great while you come across something that is truly that—in the simple telling of a story, people can realize things about themselves and the world around them that they didn’t know before.

And there is a lot of other stuff that goes on—whatever. I don’t play in that world all that much. I have had a couple of small parts is large productions coming out soon. I don’t approach my work in that way. It is much more, “Oh, they will hire me? Oh, I’ll do that job. How do I approach this job? What do I know about it?” And then march in for the first time.

LS: What is the best part about what you do?

ML: That they pay me to do this thing that is purely pleasure for me. The hardest part is waiting in between. The not working part is the hardest part.

LS: So you have these down periods? We always think of actors as going from job to job.

ML: (laughs) I always think I’ll never work again. And I have heard enough people from Raul Julia, years ago, and people you definitely think would never think that, but actors by and large and insecure people more comfortable playing someone else than being themselves. We tend to like to be told what to wear and what to say, and when to show up to varying degrees.

It is almost thirty years now that I have gotten myself employed as an actor and steadily enough that it is the only work that I do. I just recently had to decide between two projects and it was the first time in thirty years that I have had that lovely dilemma to deal with.

I will go sometimes months without working. After Homicide, which I did for 5 years, I could not get hired for 2 years and did basically nothing. It was, “Well, we don’t want that.” And meanwhile, friends and family that had known me forever saw Kay Howard and said, “How did you do that?” So you can’t win for losing or lose for winning. I don’t know. I don’t pick and choose my work. It picks and chooses me.

I am very proud of my career now. Looking back over it, I wouldn’t change a heartbeat of it. It has been full of all kinds of frustrations. The thing I realize more and more as I walk onto sets is that people tend to find a home in the industry. I am somebody who, since the beginning of my career, has been on the biggest sets to the student films to the stage in New York, always changing it up because that is the next opportunity.

LS: You are not at all what I thought you would be like.

ML: Oh, what did you think I would be like?!

LS: I thought you were going to be really tough. And here you are, quiet and delicate.

ML: Well, do me a wrong turn and you might see some of that! Not really. I’m really gentle and sort of boring. Ray Eddy is much more interesting!

LS: Have you ever wanted anything as badly as Ray wants her double-wide trailer?

ML: Have I ever trafficked people across frozen rivers? Is that what you are asking? (laughter) I don’t want like that. I am much more of somebody who makes do with what is in front of me.

Special thanks to Melissa Leo for this interview.