Eight years later, the “Saw” franchise is reportedly coming to a close, and although the history of the horror genre – specifically, the fourth “Friday the 13th” film – has taught us that no chapter is ever truly final, they’re at least trying to make us think they’re going out with a bang, eschewing a straightforward “Saw VII” and instead offering fans an additional dimension of gory fun with “Saw 3D.”

First up, Costas Mandylor and Kevin Greutert…

Journalist: So there’s, like, a volcano eruption of 3D films out there now, with the whole “take that and run with it” Hollywood attitude. What sets this one apart from other 3D horror films?

Kevin Greutert: Well, for one thing, this film was actually shot in 3D. We didn’t do a post-conversion like a lot of the other movies that have come out lately. I think that shooting it in 3D makes all the difference in the world, so it just looks that much better. This was shot with state-of-the-art cameras that are a lot more lightweight than any previous 3D films, so we were able to preserve the “Saw” style of doing a lot of stuff handheld and keeping the camera moving around a lot and very dynamic. Because technology is advancing so quickly, we were able to just take advantage on all aspects.

Journalist: Has 3D changed the blocking of the set and what you’re actually doing in the film?

KG: Yeah, it affects the way we block the scene, because we want to maximize the feeling of depth in the image, even if it’s not an in-your-face moment where stuff’s flying into the camera. We still wanted it to look as rich and full of space as possible.

Journalist: At what point in the production process was the decision made that the film was going to be in 3D? Was that from the outset, or did that happen…

KG: It was decided…that was probably the very first decision made on the film, and I had actually hoped even before we made “Saw V” to direct “Saw VI” in 3D but wasn’t able to make that work. So by the time “Saw VII” came along, now there’s enough infrastructure in terms of theaters that are equipped with 3D equipment to go forward, and…yeah, no one ever thought twice about doing it in 3D.

Journalist: How does 3D enhance the storyline?

KG: Well, I don’t know how much it actually plays into the story. There’s a bit of self-reference in the opening scene of the movie, which is the first “Saw” scene that takes place in broad daylight, with a big crowd watching one of Jigsaw’s big contraptions at play. There’s, I think, a little bit of an implicit message about horror audiences watching voyeuristically. 3D, I think, just kind of takes that to another level.

Journalist: Costas, what keeps bringing you back to this franchise?

Costas Mandylor: You know what? In a way, luck. And the character seems to have worked. And, you know, when you collaborate with people like Kevin and a couple of the other guys before him, and you know what you’re doing together, it’s a comfortable situation where you don’t have to get really… (Hesitates) I mean, some guys in life are a pain in the ass, and they die. “Saw” does that really easy. I committed to it as best as I could, and spending time with Tobin (Bell) and seeing how committed he was to keeping a certain standard, not letting the fans down was really important to him, so it wasn’t just going to a gig, doing my thing, and leaving. I actually paid attention. There’s a great example of…when I first started, I think it was in “IV,” he had a great idea for a scene and he called me at, like, 11:30 at night. He goes… (Does a Tobin Bell growl) “Hey, Costas, are you awake?” Jigsaw’s calling me at midnight on the phone. I’m in trouble here. (Laughs) I went to see him…reluctantly…but we spent some time together, and the scene…that was a really long scene that we did, with the gun to the…? It just worked beautifully, because he put the effort in and forced me to be okay with putting in my ideas as well. So I’m still here ‘til the end of this one, and…we don’t even know the endings. But for now, I’m in.

KG: We have more control over Costas by not letting his character die. (Laughs) We hold that over his head every year.

Journalist: But that doesn’t keep Tobin from coming back!

KG: (Laughs) He has more screen time dead than he did alive!

Journalist: Does there come a time when you’re doing a series like this…I know that when you do sequels that maybe there’s a temptation where you have to outdo, improve, and do better with each and every film, but does there become a point, though, when you get to a certain stage where you can’t sort of outdo what you’ve done before, and so maybe you have to go in sort of a sideways direction with the franchise?

KG: Well, I think that’s why the decision was made to have this be the final chapter, because, like, I do think that we do and should always try to outdo ourselves, and I’m just not sure how much longer that process can be true to itself. So, you know, I don’t think we went sideways in this film at all. Actually, the scope of the production is a lot bigger than any of the other “Saw” films, so the idea was to go out with a bang rather than, as you say, go sideways or let it sort of deteriorate.

Journalist: Was the process different consciously, knowing that this was the final chapter?

KG: Well, sure, because we wanted to wrap up a lot of the lingering questions and storylines that had been around. Rather than do the trick of ending on a cliffhanger to sort of force people to buy tickets next year, we went all in with this. So that was very much part of the process from the beginning.

Journalist: So there’s no possibility of a “Freddy vs. Jigsaw” or…

KG: In Hell. (Laughs)

Journalist: Jason already went there.

KG: But he didn’t fight Jigsaw there!

Journalist: You mentioned the fans. How much attention do you pay to fan feedback, and did that have any input into the story?

KG: Well, I think the fans have a lot of impact on the series, whether they know it or not, because we pay a lot of attention to what we discuss with friends and what we read on all the various websites where people are talking about “Saw.” So we get a good sense of what’s working and what isn’t working just from watching those.

CM: And then I’m afraid to ask. I mean, we went to a big convention once… (Starts to laugh) …and this little skinny kid gets up, and he asks us something that nobody’s ever asked. And I looked up, and I said, “You little smart-ass.” And then I went, “That’s a Kevin question.” (Laughs)

KG: Yeah, right!

CM: The guys pay attention to detail. I think that’s part of the magic of the “Saw” movies. It’s clever, and people want to put the clues together and follow everything, and they really pay attention. And I think that everybody’s tried to be responsible to them, to not let them down.

KG: Yeah, nothing gets past the fans. If there’s a flaw…

CM: …they’ll let you know.

KG: (Laughs) We hear about it. Big time.

Journalist: How do you feel about those who refer to this in the term of “torture porn”?

KG: (Sighs) Well, torture is involved in this film, but porn? I don’t know. It’s a little bit fetishistic, I suppose, but…I don’t know. I don’t really like the phrase “torture porn,” at least as it applies to “Saw.”

CM: (Puts up his dukes) Who said that?

KG: (Laughs) To me, it sort of cheapens what it is, which is a psychological thriller. If it was just one scene after another of people getting tortured with no storyline through it, then sure, but it’s not that, and everyone knows that. The only people who call it that are people who haven’t ever watched a “Saw” film. In my opinion.

Journalist: Is it important to you that the films have kind of a social consciousness level to them, as opposed to some of the other competitors within the subgenre?

KG: I think it enriches it a lot if it feels like it’s something that’s very today. We might have gone too far with “Saw VI” by having the healthcare angle… (Laughs) …but it’s the God’s honest truth that, when Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton came up with that idea, it was long before it was a political issue in a big way. And, frankly, Obama wasn’t talking about it…wisely…in the lead-up to the election, which was just a few days after the movie came out. And then as soon as the movie came out, bang, health care was all over the news, and it made it seem like we were kind of whoring with it. But, really, it just suited the character to be a crooked insurance dude, so…that was more a coincidence that us trying to make some kind of policy statement, which we absolutely were not.

Bullz-Eye: Costas, was the 3D process any different for you as an actor?

CM: Uh, yeah, I made the mistake of using one term loosely and saying it was a tedious process… (Laughs) …and somebody made it sound really bad. The bottom line is that it took a little longer, and the one that suffered more than anybody was (Kevin) and the camera guy, because they have to get it right. You know, calibration and being specific with lights and all that stuff. For me, it was a good excuse to go play with the crew that wasn’t on set and crack a couple of jokes. So I got to socialize a little bit more. But the only frustrating thing was sometimes you’re ready to do a scene and then, like, it’s another 40 minutes, so you’d go off and…we got used to that. But, you know, the payoff’s big, so in the end…

KG: I think you flexed your muscles more.

CM: Yeah, I was bulging more. I’d go to the bathroom and warm up a little bit, just check myself out. (Laughs) But it was very…the thing that was interesting, it took a little longer, but…the world’s changing, and it’s nice to be a part of that change, you know?

KG: I don’t think that it necessarily affects actor performance, per se, the fact that it’s in 3D, but I think the actors’ experience is a little bit different. 3D looks best, in my opinion, with wide-angle lenses, but in “Saw,” we love our close-ups, and the camera has this huge apparatus on the front of it that means that, in order to get a close-up, you’re banging against the actor. That can’t be fun, you know?

CM: But, you know, if the actor’s thinking about the camera…and some actors are really conscious of the camera, because it has to be your buddy and you have to stand in front of it…but, you know, you’ve got to do your job, and the camera can help you if you’re doing the right thing.

Journalist: Kevin, you directed…it’s only a small role, but the winner of the “Scream Queens II” contest in this one.

KG: (Laughs) That’s right!

Journalist: Was there security involved in keeping…how does she film this before it’s revealed that she’s won the thing?

KG: Somehow they were able to keep it secret, both with Gabby (West) and then with Tanedra (Howard) last year. They shot the “Scream Queens” episodes long, long before we made the movie, but somehow they kept it under wraps, so it wasn’t revealed until they wanted it to.

CM: It’s kind of surprising that one of the girls who lost early didn’t say, you know?

KG: What, you think there’s cattiness involved? (Laughs) Is that what you’re trying to say?

CM: (Laughs) I wouldn’t know.

Journalist: Are you a big horror movie fan?

KG: Of course. Yeah, absolutely.

Journalist: What are your favorites?

KG: Well, most recently, I was just talking to Cary Elwes about “Martyrs.” I really loved “Martyrs.” It’s just a fantastic movie. Brutal, hard to watch at times, but…it felt very elevated, with this odd reveal of what was really going on in that film. I think in terms of the “Saw” series, the Argento and Bava films were very influential, and I’m a big “Suspiria” fan. I don’t know if it’s horror, but I love the Herzog “Nosferatu.” I’ve seen that film countless times.

CM: Which one?

KG: “Nosferatu,” with Klaus Kinski.

CM: Ah, yeah. It’s weird, but wonderful.

Journalist: You went from editor of the series to director. How was that transition?

KG: Well, I always did want to direct. I didn’t think “Saw” would be my ticket to that when I cut the first one, but soon after that, I started positioning myself to get promoted. And it took awhile, but by the time it did happen, I was in pretty good shape in terms of it not being that difficult of an experience, because I knew and had rapport with the actors already, just from having edited the films, and knew the crew well and had worked with them as a second-unit director on “Saw V.” So it really wasn’t as kind of a giant change as you would think…even though physically it was, to come out of the cave and be in the bigger cave with lots of people demanding things.

Journalist: Would you not say, to play devil’s advocate, that these sort of films lend themselves to that sort of filmmaking, that being an editor makes you more successful in putting together a film that’s almost like a jigsaw, no pun intended?

KG: Yeah, for sure. The films have always been very editing-intensive, you know. James had kind of a graphic design sense of cutting the film, and I think by knowing the films inside and out it helped a lot when I was on the stage, you would be surprised how many countless little micro-decisions have to be made on the spot. Is someone wearing a wedding ring? Would there be blood on this side of their face? And I would literally have to think back, “Well, in ‘Saw II,’ that’s what happened, and it must have been about three weeks…” I mean, that sort of stuff, those sort of issues are very common on the set, and, yeah, it helped a lot having cut the films.

Journalist: Can you talk about bringing Cary back and what it’s like to have his character bookend the series?

KG: Well, it was a very pleasant surprise to find out that we finally got Cary Elwes back into the franchise. It was something that we wanted to do and needed to do for a really long time. I’m just very glad that it happened. It was…well, I don’t want to… (Hesitates, then laughs) Everything I want to say is laden with spoilers, so let’s just say that it was very fun to hear his voice booming across the set.

In a moment of perfect timing, this proved to be the last question, at which point Greunert and Mandylor were escorted to their next stop. Within a few moments, we were introduced to Cary Elwes and Betsy Russell, who took a seat and began their turn at answering our questions.

Journalist: Cary, when we were doing our last roundtable, we ended it by talking about what enticed you to come back to the franchise. Can you talk about that a little bit?

Cary Elwes: Well, the reason that I’m here, really, is because of the fans. They’re the ones that campaigned heavily to bring Dr. Gordon back. They got involved in writing to the studio and E-mailing and in the blogosphere and chat rooms, so I really have them to thank. So the producers came to me, and when they showed me the script, I thought it was very clever the way they brought me back, and I thought…seeing as this was the last one, I thought it would be a nice way to bookend the series and answer a lot of unanswered questions about what happened to him.

Journalist: When you first started this role, “Saw” was just an independent horror movie that was coming out of nowhere, and now, when you come back to this being a huge franchise that’s coming out every year, how does that feel?

CE: It’s incredibly, really. I mean, I never expected it. I think I can speak for the original filmmakers, James (Wan) and Lee (Whannell), that none of us had any idea that it would turn into this huge thing. So we’re thrilled, obviously, and…it’s the fans. It’s the fans that keep coming back, and they’re really involved and really passionate about it. So we have them to think.

Journalist: I’ve seen a number of people say it baffles them how your surgeon character didn’t think to saw off just his heel instead of his whole foot.

CE: (Laughs) That’s a good question. That’s funny. Yeah, I don’t think he was thinking too hard at the time, being a professional surgeon. Good question. I know Shaq sawed off the wrong foot, right? (Laughs) Yeah, uh…

Betsy Russell: You’re not the writer.

CE: I’m not the writer. Exactly.

BR: We’re only actors.

CE: I only take direction.

Journalist: Well, how much do you bring your own sense of developing your internal back story to the characters, or do you just leave it whatever the writers give you?

CE: For me, I…I went and met some neurosurgeons over at UCLA, just to get a sense for what it was like to play one, and I was privileged enough to do the rounds with them. But, you know, James and Lee had written such a full character for me, and a lot of it was really on the page, so a lot of the hard work was really done for me.

Journalist: When you walked off the set at the end of the first “Saw,” did you think that there was any hope for Dr. Gordon to come back, or was he dying in that hallway somewhere?

CE: I thought he was dead. (Laughs) I thought anyone who sawed his leg off with a rusty hacksaw was not going to get very far. But, you know, this is filmmaking, and these guys are very inventive in the way that they’ve brought characters to life that seemingly were not going to see the light of day.

Journalist: And I guess a similar question regarding Jill, at what point in the filming process, going all the way back to “Saw IV, did you know what was in the box and where that was going to take the character?

BR: I didn’t know there was a box. (Laughs) And I don’t think any of us did ‘til “V.” So you never know ‘til you read the script, and there it is, and I’m, like, “Oh, my gosh, I can’t believe this is happening! I’m so excited!” So it’s sort of, like, every time it’s a new experience. Every time we open those scripts. A lot of cast members don’t get the last 20 pages, so most of the cast members don’t even know. I mean, I’ve been privileged, thank God, I’ve read the end every time, but a lot of them haven’t, so…it’s been quite mysterious.

Journalist: So, Cary, I have to add personally that I grew up loving “Princess Bride” and “The Crush,” and I definitely had a crush on you.

CE: (Laughs) Thank you.

Journalist: Do you think that the “Saw” franchise has brought a new audience to explore your older work?

CE: I hope so. I’m not sure. I don’t know how many fans of “Princess Bride” will come see “Saw” or vice versa. (Laughs) I hope so!

BR: If they’re real fans, they will!

Journalist: It was a logical progression!

CE: (Laughs) Thank you. That’s the right answer, yeah. But, you know, I’m very blessed. You’re lucky as an actor that you’re remembered for anything or be a part of anything that ends up being successful, like those films have been, and this one. So I’m very blessed, and I feel very grateful for that.

Journalist: Can I just ask if you’re looking to do anything in comedy again?

CE: Well, I’m doing “Yellow Submarine,” which is kind of fun. We start shooting that next year, and that’s going to be a lot of fun. I like to mix it up a bit, you know? I try not to do too much of the same thing, although this is a return for me in this film. But it was such an interesting script, and I love the director, Kevin Greutert, so I couldn’t pass up the opportunity. And, like I said, the fans really demanded that I come back.

Journalist: Are you guys big horror fans?

CE: Yeah, I am.

BR: I’m not.

Journalist: What are some of your favorites?

CE: I grew up on Hammer horror films as a kid, you know, ‘cause I grew up in England, so those were very heavily part of my childhood, and they were obviously very popular and successful when I was growing up in England. So I grew up on those, and then I naturally progressed to films like “The Shining” and “The Exorcist.” Now, I’m a big fan of Guillermo Del Toro. He’s brilliant. But Kevin…this guy outdid himself with this film. I saw it a couple of weeks ago, and…it’s without a doubt the most graphically violent movie I have ever seen in my life. I mean, hands down. It’s relentless. It really is. I mean, at one point, I was just laughing hysterically, it was just so unbelievably intense…and it’s not a film I want to sit through a second time. (Laughs)

Journalist: (Betsy) looks like the laugh was a bit of a surprise.

BR: I haven’t seen any yet.

CE: Well, you’re laughing out of fear. You can’t believe this kind of thing is taking place in front of your eyes.

Journalist: Yeah, sometimes you either laugh or throw up, so…

CE: You have to, right? It’s relentless. It’s…it’s unbelievable.

Journalist: How do you project that fear as an actor? Because you’re in such an intense, emotional state for the entire run? How do you do that? How do you deal with that? Do you bring that home?

BR: I’ve had a lot of drama in my life… (Laughs) …and I’ve used it well, I think. I’ve had a lot of pain and a lot of break-ups and miscarriages, and, you know, when I was 20, I didn’t have all of that to pull from, so I’m grateful that my life has been topsy-turvy. (Laughs) And, yeah, I really use that a lot in my character study, sure.

CE: I have been fortunate. I don’t have a lot of drama in my life…

BR: You’re not a girl!

CE: (Laughs) …so I just act. That’s what I do.

Journalist: So pretty much, like, on the page, you read it and there it is, and that’s it.

CE: Yeah.

Journalist: Is there any sense of a responsibility on set, knowing this is the final chapter, since, you know, next Halloween there’s not going to be another “Saw”?

BR: (Breaks into mock sobbing)

CE: Well, I think there’s a responsibility to the fans that we do a good job, and I really feel that we have. They’re not going to be disappointed. There’s no way.

BR: Yeah, I was definitely feeling the pressure with this one. I mean, just to do a good job and end on a high note, in a way. Just to be the best Jill I could possibly be. (Laughs)

Journalist: Who are the fans of “Saw,” if you had to describe them?

BR: These fans get it. They get that “Saw” has a heart and a soul and a life of its own. I mean, seriously, I read these things, and my tears are falling down my face, and, truthfully, I do spiritual psychology, and these people are very spiritual, and they are getting the message behind “Saw,” which is, “Appreciate your life, be grateful in every moment, make the best choices that you can.” And forgiveness. If you really read between the lines and listen, that’s, to me, what I take away from Jigsaw and his plan and putting these people in traps that are doing things the way that he doesn’t believe is the way it should be done. He has an opportunity, having cancer and everything, to say, “Okay, I know the end of my life is coming. These people don’t necessarily know when it’s going to happen, but if they did, and the time is now, what choices would they make differently?”

Journalist: So you’re saying Jigsaw is a force of good?

BR: I think behind everything that he’s doing, in the end, his message is gratitude and making the right choices. Yeah, for sure.

Bullz-Eye: What was the experience of filming in 3D like for you guys?

CE: I found it very enjoyable. It’s the first 3D movie I’ve made, and I think it was a very wise choice on the filmmakers’ part because, as I say, I saw the film, and it lends itself particularly well to 3D. There’s a lot of… (Clears throat) …limbs flying at you.

BR: (Bursts out laughing) He still can’t get over it. He saw the movie a couple of weeks ago, and he’s still in shock.

CE: It’s really intense. But the filmmaking process really wasn’t that much different. Kevin gave us some notes here and there to change your movement or a line or…just very slight variations in terms of movement to help with exploiting the 3D process. But the most part, we didn’t want to do anything gimmicky.

BR: Yeah, we weren’t, like, “Okay, this is 3D now, we’re going to have look this way or that way.”

Journalist: So there’s no yo-yo scene.

CE: That’s right. We cut the yo-yo scene.

BR: And it was just…I mean, every scene took hours to set up. Everything took forever, and the cameras were huge, and…

CE: It was the first time the crew were using them. It was the first 3D equipment ever in Toronto.

BR: Ever.

CE: So these cameras were arriving, and this crew, who are incredible, really had to hit the grown running.

BR: They went to seminars and everything.

CE: It was a real learning curve for them. They had very little prep time. The first week or so was a little slow, but after that, we hit our stride.

BR: It was still slow, though. The whole process was very slow. And it was cool. Like, they’d say, “Oh, do you want to see some cut footage? We just have a little bit of stuff cut together. You want to come check it out?” And I’m, like, “Am I in it?” And they’re, like, “Yeah, you’re in it.” “Okay, fine, I’ll look.” (Laughs) So then I would go to a corner, there’s a big screen TV, we’d put the cool little glasses on…some glasses had people’s names on them, usually producers only…and we’d watch the scenes cut together. And it was, like, “Whoa, this is so cool! It’s like you’re actually in the room!” I mean, I haven’t seen that many movies 3D…you guys probably have…but it’s actually like being in the scene. It’s really awesome. So I’m excited for it.

Journalist: Have you ever thought about the legacy of “Saw,” in terms of how people view “Nightmare on Elm Street” and “Friday the 13th” series so many years later?

BR: All the time. I think about it all the time. I think that my grandkids are going to be, hopefully, in love with Jill Tuck. You know, going, “Oh, my God, that’s my grandmother up there!” Or, “That’s my great-grandmother!” I’m hoping that my kids are going to be studying “Saw” at college. I’m hoping they go to college, but…yeah, I mean, it’s incredible to be an actress, anyway, to leave something with the world, hopefully, and just to leave a legacy like this for fans that are our fans…? It’s a great feeling. I’m happy about it. I’m grateful.

CE: Yeah, uh…what was the question again?

BR: (Laughs) Sorry!

Journalist: Just, uh, have you considered the legacy of the films?

CE: Oh, uh, yeah, I’m proud of the fact that the films are a little bit more of morality tales, and I’m glad that they’re not just films that are violent for violence’s sake. I wouldn’t want to be part of that. And, so, at least they have something redeeming about them.

BR: Totally. Yeah, you can take away from “Saw” whatever you want to take away from it, but subconsciously I think people are getting the message. That there is a message. Like, think about it before you make that choice to go steal that, or rip these people off, or run over this person and then be a hit-and-run driver. I mean, think about it. Jigsaw could be after you!

Journalist: Do you have any good Tobin (Bell) stories?

CE: Yeah, Tobin’s great. It was nice to see him again after so long and to work with him again. He’s wonderful. He’s very…it’s funny, for a guy that’s playing serial killers, he’s actually a really big softie. And I’m sad he’s not here today, because I know he would’ve been a part of all this, but he’s shooting right now, so…

BR: He has a son a year younger than my kid’s age, and we live in the same neighborhood, and my son recently said, “Mom, isn’t it weird that you guys both live in this little community? I mean, if there are ‘Saw’ fans out there, don’t you think they should come to this neighborhood?” I was, like, “Uh, yeah…” (Laughs) But, anyway, his son plays baseball, and so he’s the coach to his little 8th grade or 9th grade son’s baseball team, and he says he gets in the huddle and he starts doing the Jigsaw voice, and they start screaming. (Laughs) So he’s really into it. You see him out throwing balls to his kid, and…you know, as an actor, to be working with someone like him, it’s a dream. It really is. I’ll be, like, “Tobin, what are you doing here, sitting next me having lunch?” He’s, like, “Well, I didn’t really come down to have lunch. I just think we should really talk about our scene and how we’re going to approach the producers about getting a little more time with this or rewriting that…” I mean, he’s engrossed and obsessed and wants to make it the best movie it can possibly be. And that’s why they’ve kept him around for so long: because he’s so great at what he does, and he gives 1000%.

Journalist: Can these films be difficult for the both of you as actors because they’re so technical? Because I can’t help thinking that you could do, like, the performance of a lifetime, and then they go, “You know ,that one was off because the 3D registration wasn’t quite right.” So in some ways, the acting almost can become secondary to the technical demands.

CE: You know…

BR: That’s life.

CE: Look, it’s no different than…I mean, cameras go bad whether they’re 3D or just regular digital cameras, you know. Digital cameras, I’ve worked with the red cameras a couple of times, and if you’re in a hot room, that thing can overheat and just shut down, like any computer. Your Apple shuts down sometimes. So, yeah, I mean, like I said, it was a new process for a lot of the crew with these cameras. We did have one breakdown that actually could not be fixed, so we had to go and send out for another one, but…like, back in the old days, before digital, you had the hair in the gate.

BR: I was just thinking that!

CE: So, you know, it’s really no different.

BR: And you’ve always just got to believe that if that one didn’t work, you’ve got a better one inside. If you go, “Oh, my God, that was, I think, the best I can do.” They’re going to say, “No! You can do one better! It wasn’t our fault. You can do better!” (Laughs)

CE: Actors are hams. They like more takes.

BR: We beg for it. We always think we can do better. Even if it was pretty good, it’s, like, “You can do better…”

Born in 1931 in what was very soon to become Hitler’s Germany, young Michael Peschkowsky was living in Manhattan by 1939. It was great luck both for the future Mike Nichols and for the country that accepted him.

Nichols is, of course, one of the most respected directors in Hollywood, and for good reason. He’s the original, craftsmanlike, and emotionally astute directorial voice responsible for such sixties and seventies classics as “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?,”  “Carnal Knowledge” and, of course, “The Graduate” (the source of his only directorial Oscar so far) as well as such eighties, nineties, and oughts successes as “Silkwood,” “Working Girl,” “The Birdcage,” and “Closer.” Even if some of the later films are not on the same level of quality as his earlier films — and several, especially his 1988 box office hit, “Working Girl,” stray into mediocrity — it’s still one of the most impressive and diverse careers of any living director in Hollywood.

That’s just on the big screen. On television, Nichols has rebounded in the eyes of many critics, directing two of the most acclaimed television productions of the last decade, 2001’s “Wit” with Emma Thompson, and the outstanding 2005 miniseries adaptation of Tony Kushner’s brilliant and mammoth epic play, “Angels in America.” With his 80th birthday just a year and a half away, he’s still working hard with two thrillers movies planned, including an I’ll-believe-it-when-I-see-it remake of Akira Kurosawa’s “High and Low” currently being rewritten by the decidedly counter-intuitive choice of Chris Rock.

Before he directed his first foot of film, Mike Nichols was a noted theater director. That in itself is not so unusual a root for directors to travel. What is different is that, before he was a noted theater director, he was half of one of the most influential comedy teams in show business history, Nichols and May. (His comedy partner, Elaine May, went on to become an important, if less commercially successful, writer and director in her own right.)

Still, from the moment he directed his first major play, Neil Simon’s “Barefoot in the Park,” Nichols mostly abandoned performing. Today, his highly regarded early work is mostly known only to fairly hardcore comedy aficionados.

That Nichols/comedy disconnect is probably related to the fact that Nichols has become famous for films and plays that are usually witty but often anything but comedies.  Some, like “Closer,” are downright dour. Still, he has never made a film where where wit was not a factor. Dissecting relationships and politics with great skill, he’s more recently allowed his comedy freak-flag to fly with farce in 1996’s “The Birdcage,” and complete absurdity in the Monty Python-based theatrical musical comedy smash, “Spamalot.”

No, there’s little doubt that there’s very little in the way of traditional drama or comedy that Mike Nichols hasn’t successfully accomplished and, as his Wikipedia entry reminds us, he’s got his “30 Rock” EGOT (Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, Tony) to back that up. There are other awards, nevertheless, and so it was that he was honored a couple of weeks back with an American Film Institute (AFI) Lifetime Achievement Award, easily one of the  highest honors any U.S. movie director can win. It was presented at what sure sounds like a highly entertaining superstar-laden black-tie ceremony on the Sony lot in Culver City. I haven’t been allowed to see it yet, but we can all catch up on it after it premieres on TV Land, tonight, June 26th, at 9:00 P.M/8:00 P.M. central.

While such mega-luminaries as Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep, Shirley MacLaine, Elaine May, and a reunited Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel stayed far away from the press, a number of us writers were allowed to briefly chat with a few select notables and friends from Nichols’ past. The first to visit with the online press was Wallace Shawn.

An extremely busy comic character actor who began his film career being insulted about his looks by Woody Allen in “Manhattan,” Wallace Shawn’s best known work ranges from the “Toy Story” films (he’s the voice of Rex, the dinosaur) to the inconceivable villain, Vizzini, of 1988’s “The Princess Bride” who proved that sometimes you actually can go up against a Sicillian when death is on the line, though we’ve all been reminded lately that getting involved in a land war in Asia remains questionable.

The son of legendary New Yorker editor William Shawn, Shawn has been a noted playwright since the 1970s. He first came to national fame having a feature-length dinner with visionary directory Andre Gregory, in the Louis Malle directed two-character 1981 art-house sensation, “My Dinner with Andre,” co-written by Shawn and Gregory. Some years later, he again collaborated in what amounted to a starring role, and a dramatic role at that, alongside Gregory and opposite a then-unknown Julianne Moore in Louis Malle’s final film, the great semi-documentary adaptation of Chekhov’s “Uncle Vanya”, “Vanya on 42nd Street.” Though Shawn’s flair for comedy and humble, regular-schmo demeanor might make him seem like the opposite of a creative flamethrower, his plays are politically charged, highly controversial, and definitely not for everyone. Fiscally speaking, I’m sure he’d agree it’s a good thing he’s got such strong acting skills.

As for his connection to Mike Nichols, though the ex-comedian has done very little acting since the early sixties, Nichols did Shawn the rare honor of starring in both the stage and film versions of Shawn’s three-character piece, “The Designated Mourner.” It was directed on both stage and screen by playwright David Hare.

Wallace Shawn might be a man of big and challenging ideas. However, as in “My Dinner with Andre,” he seemed more comfortable discussing humorously mundane matters. Asked by a highly attractive podcaster next to me about what jobs he’d be doing if he wasn’t an actor and playwright, he started discussing his early position as a shipping clerk, an experience he remembered rather fondly when asked how he’d feel if he had to return to it.

“I worked for very nice people, and it was folding nice dresses. It would be alright.”

But what about the pay?

“The pay was [long pause] poor. Because I was not at the top of the shipping clerk world. It was rather low down…I only had started as a messenger. They said, ‘This guy can probably fold these dresses as well as the next guy.'”

When asked who he admired as a young man coming up, he said that, while there were many, he was more likely to idolize people today, specifically naming Mike Nichols as well as Nobel Prize winning linguist and leftist intellectual superstar Noam Chomsky.

Then I thought I’d go back to a line from a “Andre” in which he mentioned that, as a child raised in comfort, all he thought about was art and music, but that as 36 year-old working adult, he mainly thought about money. Where was he on the curve now?  Was he back to thinking about high-minded matters like art and philosophy or still focusing on the mundane need for ready cash?

“I do think a lot about how money affects things, but I think about it philosophically and artistically.”

I tried to follow it up with a question about the politics in Nichols’ work but after agreeing that “Angels in America” was a really good and weighty work of theater and politics, he was off to the next interviewer.

My dreams of a substantial, if necessarily super-brief, Terry Gross-style discussion with Shawn dashed, there was no time for recriminations because next up was character actor Tim Curry.  Though he’ll never quite live down the charismatic Mick-Jagger-meets-Juliet-Prowse excellence of his cult superstar making performance in “The Rocky Horror Picture Show,” Curry has more than 200 credits on his IMDb page, including innumerable voice characterization for animation, and he may well rack up another hundred at the rate he’s going.

So, after such an eventful career, including innumerable highly demanding stage roles such as originating the role of Mozart in the Broadway production of Peter Shaffer’s “Amadeus” and any number of strong performances in films ranging from the board-game adaptation “Clue” to “The Hunt for Red October” to Bill Condon’s terrific 2004 docudrama, “Kinsey,” what was it like finally working with Mike Nichols during the 2005 Broadway production of the ultimate (and so far only) Monty Python-derived stage musical comedy, “Spamalot”?

“It was really great, which is why I’m here.”

Did that have something to do with Nichols own background as a comedian.

“Absolutely, because nobody knows funny like he does. He’s brilliant at comedy. He knows what it is. He knows how to make it work.”

Then it was time for my ultimate fall-back question which invariably pleases highly experienced actors — and for which I once again must credit Mr. Will Harris. Was there anything in Mr. Curry’s hugely full background which he felt deserves more attention?

“That’s a good question,” said Curry, taking a second to think. “I did a film in Arkansas where I played…a sort of version of [scandal plagued TV preacher] Jim Bakker. The company went broke just as it came into the theater, so nobody ever saw it.”

(The film comedy in question, 1988’s “Pass the Ammo,” is currently unavailable on DVD. Bug Lionsgate if you want to see it.)

After that, it was time for Curry to move on to the next questioner who queried him about his ongoing stint on “Criminal Minds.” For the sake of any fans of the shows out there — which I gather may include the previously mentioned Mr. Harris and another fellow PHer, Ross Ruediger — Curry confesses to being a huge enthuisast of the show himself and admits that he lobbied heavily for a part. Also, for any “Clue” cultists out there, he’s aware of the Rocky Horror-esque midnight shows at theaters like the Nuart in Los Angeles — complete with costumed film-goers — but he hasn’t attended. “It’s a bit late for an elderly person.”

Next up was one of the most familiar faces of American movies circa 1965-1980. In the seventies, George Segal carved himself a niche as somewhere between the Jewish Cary Grant and the handsome Woody Allen in films like “A Touch of Class,” Robert Altman’s classic look at compulsive gamblers, “California Split,” Carl Reiner’s edgy cult comedy classic, “Where’s Poppa?” (aka “Going Ape”) as well as such late seventies mainstream fare as “Fun with Dick and Jane” and “Rollercoaster.” These days, Segal is probably best known for his role as Laura San Giacomo’s publisher father on TV’s “Just Shoot Me.” In his mid-seventies, he remains a busy character actor and is about to headline his own sitcom on TV Land, “Retired at 35.”

Segal’s career got a major kick-start in the mid-sixties with two acclaimed films, the POW drama “King Rat” and, more relevant here, his somewhat underrated supporting turn in Mike Nichols hugely important directorial debut, Edward Albee’s “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” In the film, he and actress Sandy Dennis portrayed a younger married couple on shaky ground who find themselves drawn in to a very late night of ultra-dysfunction by rampaging academic drunks George (Richard Burton) and Martha (Elizabeth Taylor). Though most of the attention went to the more histrionic performances by Burton and Taylor, Dennis and Segal were invaluable in grounding the film with their two highly layered performances.

Still, when asked about what he would do if he weren’t acting by my neighbor, he said that he’d probably be a professional banjo player. “I wouldn’t work as much — there’ s not much demand for them.” Late seventies/early eighties TV viewers and really knowledgeable traditional jazz fans will know this is no mere joke. Segal’s singing and banjo playing was once a familiar site on “The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson” when he fronted the Dixieland-playing Beverly Hills Unlisted Jazz Band alongside writer Sheldon Keller and fellow thespian Conrad Janis (“Mork and Mindy”).

When asked about Mike Nichols directorial technique, he denied ever having doubts about any of Nichols’ directorial decisions. “Those smart guys, they’re smart.”

Being curious about what smart guys do, I pretty much had to ask Segal about the making of Nichols epochal film adaptation of “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” Among other matters, the 1966 relationship-drama-on-steroids — already something of a shocker on Broadway — more or less delivered the final blow against the strict classic-era film censorship of the MPAA Production Code as well as changing preconceptions about what mainstream audiences would accept with its then remarkably blunt language and brutal emotionalism.  Since it was theater director Nichols’ first film, sure to be a super-controversial sensation, and  starring easily the most famous couple of the time in Taylor and Burton — very much the Brangelina of their day — those must have been heady times for a relatively new performer like the 32 year-old Segal.

“It was very intense. It was like six months that we spent on that movie, and one of those months was all rehearsal. So, that movie was prepared. By the time we got to doing it, we could have put it on as a play. And I think that comes across. They don’t do that anymore,” Segal said.

(Actually, it was pretty rare even then. Then and now, movies are typically shot over a period of 4-8 weeks, with only minimal or no time for rehearsal.)

Next up was a real hero of my youth — and it’s not like he’s exactly chopped liver now — Eric Idle. No more able to escape his past association with a certain six-man comedy ensemble than the surviving Beatles will ever escape their fab past, Idle has recently found great success retrofitting the group’s mega-cult breakthrough, “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” into the smash Broadway and London musical comedy success, “Spamalot,” directed, naturally, by Mike Nichols.

Talking to Idle, I found it necessary to gush a bit. I was probably one of the first in L.A. to know anything at all of the existence of Monty Python, which had barely begun playing on PBS in Southern California, when “Holy Grail” opened in theaters in 1975. Being a bored kid with nothing to do but having never seen a single Python sketch, I hopped on a bus for Westwood Village to see the film on the strength of a couple of a couple of good reviews. Let’s just say that, as it would for so many geeks, my life would change just a little bit that day.

Still, it sure didn’t seem like it was on its way to being an institution and an English national treasure that day. There were perhaps three or four other people in attendance that afternoon. Idle says he was actually there at the Regent Theater for some of those early screenings, alongside “Brazil” director to be Terry Gilliam — quite possibly including the one I attended. I certainly wouldn’t have recognized either one of them at the time. But that was then, this is now and we’ve both moved on from our respective immanent projects at the time: becoming a worldwide comedy star in Idle’s case, puberty in mine.

How was working with Nichols on “Spamalot,” different than it would have been with other theater directors.

“He’s a comedian. He’s been there, so he knows where the laughs are. When to take them and when to leave them alone. He’s got a great deal of taste.”

So, other than Nichols, and himself, who are Idle’s favorite comedy directors?

“There are one or two people who are very good. Johnny Lynn [English sitcom creator and film director Jonathan Lynn of “My Cousin Vinny” and “Nuns on the Run”] is very good. It’s a specialized skill, comedy. But Mike really tends to leave the comedy to itself and then he tends to go more about truth-telling. He’s not worried about the comedy, he’s more concerned about the drama and the relationships and emotions. That what makes him so good.”

And was there anything Idle had worked on which he felt hadn’t gotten enough attention? At first, he misunderstood the question as, I think, the project he was most proud of, and answered “Spamalot.” When I explained I was talking about projects that had been mostly ignored — and a nationally touring, Tony-winning show doesn’t really qualify — he got into the spirit.

“Well,” he said, laughing, “[Composer] Johnny Du Prez and I have been writing musicals for 25 years, and we finally did ‘Spamalot.’ We have about 280 songs recorded. So, I think when we’re gone there’s boxes full of old songs.”

Little did I know at that point, but Idle would shortly be dressed as an angel while serenading Mike Nichols and the AFI crowd with a rendition of  “Always Look at the Bright Side of Life.” The song — which really was the perfect ending for the follow-up Monty Python classic, “Life of Brian” — has most certainly not been ignored. It’s been covered by Harry Nillson, Art Garfunkel, and Green Day and, according to Wikipedia, is sometimes sung at soccer matches and, yes, funerals.

Moving along, it wouldn’t be a red carpet if there wasn’t at least one celebrity present who is completely unknown to most Americans and has no discernible connection to the event. In this case that would have to be Jaime Camill, a personable actor and television host apparently hugely famous in Mexico and Latin America and who was then preparing to help cover the World Cup. He naturally made it very clear that he’d be honored to work with Mike Nichols at some point and who declared that all Mike Nichols films are “amazing.” I’m mentioning him really only because of the sheer randomness of it. Also, who knows, we might get some Latin American hits out of it.

Then we got to the point at the Red Carpet that I will call the Hyperspeed Parade of A-Listers Past and Present, or H-PALPAP for short. This is the point when the real household names at any of these events, having already spoken profound words to the truly major outlets (say, “EXTRA” and “ET”), whiz by us less major outlets. If we’re very lucky, they may provide a wave or a stray word or two.

Now, the only way to properly deal with the H-PALPAP is to have a large microphone in your hand and preferably a very large TV camera behind you. Then, you must come up with a really quick question that is entirely non-controversial but also kind of interesting enough to get their attention and ignore the (literally) screaming paparazzi behind them. The classic example of an H-PALPAP question is, I’m sure, “Who are you wearing?” Since you guys presumably don’t care about that, I really don’t know Vera Wang from Vera Miles, and I don’t own a large television camera, I have yet to perfect my H-PALPAP approach. However, since I got a few okay pictures of some of the more super-celebs, I’ll go with some pictures and brief commentary for the balance of this post.

Like Mr. Camill, the first H-PALPAPer jovially confessed to not having ever worked with Mike Nichols and expressed a sincere desire to do so. However, if Michael Douglas — who is promoting both the limited release success “Solitary Man” and the upcoming sequel to “Wall Street” — really wants to go to a party, he usually gets to go. After making a sincere case that he’s a fan of Mr. Nichols to a swarm of press that had clustered around him, however, the H-PALPAP-savvy reporter next to me asked Douglas — as she’d been asking almost everyone — what entertainment figures had inspired the young Michael Douglas to go into “the industry”?

“What am I going to do? My whole family’s in it. I couldn’t get away from it!” said the second generation A-lister son of Diana Douglas and Kirk freakin’ Douglas, suddenly seeming a bit more half-Jewish than usual, right down to talking with his hands.

Perhaps getting ready for a role, actor Giovanni Ribisi was next, sporting a mustache and soul patch which makes him like something between a Western bad guy and and a perverted jazz musician. A very solid performer but perhaps not really an A-lister, Ribisi stopped by long enough to answer a previously discussed H-PALPER-friendly question, about what he’d be doing if he weren’t an actor. “I’d be watching the Laker game.”

Apparently, if he were just a little more famous, he could have done both because later reports indicated that Jack Nicholson arrived late from watching the game and perhaps enjoyed a few beers, or something while doing so. According to numerous accounts of the night, his joke cum unsolvable Zen koan or perhaps veiled threat/warning to Nichols was “even oysters have enemies.” Someone should use those words in a song someday.

In any case, my Ribisi pictures didn’t come out so great. So, here, have a totally random picture of Harrison Ford, and a portion of Calista Flockhart, though I didn’t hear a word either said.

Wow, he’s really famous.

And then there the great women who passed where I simply fouled up with the camera. Candice Bergen (“Murphy Brown”), a huge favorite/crush of mine since I first saw her in “Carnal Knowledge” rushed by, clearly uninterested in courting the press too much. I got one picture that, tragically, just didn’t seem to look right when I put it here.

I had even worse luck getting a good photo of Helen Mirren with or without her director husband, Taylor Hackford (“Ray”). She cheerfully past us all by, but but gave a rather long and detailed answer to a writer from a green website who shouted a quick question asking her what she did to try and limit her carbon footprint. That’s part of why she’s super-cool, I guess. My recorder failed to capture the witty words of Emma Thompson in response to the same question, and my camera only caught half of her face at time, as well as the top of her head and, I swear by accident, her chest. If I could put them all together, I might have a decent picture.

They were followed quite rapidly by Steven Spielberg, who truly had no time for us Pixel-stained wretches and Mike Nichols himself, who was being understandably a bit selective and thoughtfully avoiding the 299 questions I could ask him. I got a picture of Nichols’ news anchor wife, Diane Sawyer, ironically begging not to be asked any questions by the media. Alas, it was bit too skewed, “Battlefield Earth” style, to use here.

I did, however, manage an acceptable picture of Warren Beatty and his mega-talented wife Annette Bening who, when asked one of the standard H-PALPER’s questions, said hardly a word, but provided fast-fingered photographers, but not me, a hilarious moment of prime Beatty-style evasiveness. You’ll have to make do with the squinty one I got below.

Then, somewhat surprisingly, none other than Cher, who is currently preparing to costar in the musical drama “Burlesque” with Christina Aguilera and Kristin Bell alit near us, talking to reporters en mass. She discussed her dress, of course, and her first meetings with Mike Nichols. (He famously rejected her early overture about acting in one of his films, later changing his mind, apologizing, and asking her to join the case of 1983’s “Silkwood.” That film wound up getting the singer her first Oscar nomination.)

She also took to the green question — and this time my recorder caught her answer.

“Oh, God. I just bought the ugliest car in the world. It’s some sort of Mercedes station-wagon that puts steam back into the air.”

And what would she have done if she hadn’t become a ultra-glam singer/actress and just had a “regular Joe job”?

“I’d be a bank robber.” I was also robbed of any good pictures of her.

Then, finally, my photographic luck improved a little with the appearance of Mary Louise Parker of “Weeds” and “Angels in America.” I had watched her the night before via my jam-packed-with-old-stuff DVR interviewing Elvis Costello on his “Spectacle” chat show in a special role-reversal episode. I figured it would be good to have seen it in the off-chance that I had a second to talk to her.  That wasn’t to be as the star was walking by as fast as her feet could move. I did, however, overhear that if she hadn’t become an actor, she’d be a kindergarten teacher.